Abstract Words

I posted a response to this discussion on the means-end dichotomy.

nirgrahamUK: http://mises.org/pdf/humanaction/pdf/Ha_04.pdf ? its 4 and a half big font pages.Thank you, though not for the link. I read Human Action from beginning to end.

I mean "thank you", for demonstrating that I had not written what I meant clearly enough. Thank you for showing that I had communicated my thoughts poorly.

You have done an important thing. You have demonstrated that you have terminological differences than me. I had probably used the word "axiom" an a way differently that you had interpreted it. Thank you for taking note of the different interpretations of the words I wrote.

I will write more carefully next time. I will not just write a few sentences to explain my thoughts. I understand the impossibility to express what I had meant with those meager sentences. I learned that no one could write understandable text in philosophy, without expressing each detail in several paragraphs or even pages. Philosophy, which deals with extremely abstract ideas, will inevitably have terminological problems.

More concrete ideas, such as a "pencil", have no definitional conflicts. Almost everyone has the same definitions for "pencil", "chair", and "table". But not so with more abstract ideas, such as "state", "nature", "aggression", "subjectivism", and "objectivism". For example, libertarians commonly define a "state" as a "monopoly of violence funded by taxation". Meanwhile, brainwashed statists defines the "state" as "a beneficial institution that provides services for the population." Generally, the more abstract the idea, the more conflicts over its definition.

Philosophy, ethics, and logic have a lot of abstract ideas. Therefore, those topics would probably have a potential significant amount of terminological differences. This thread itself deals with ethics. Therefore, this thread will, and has, suffered from semantic problems.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, I could clearly write my thoughts clearly only if I expanded my writing. I must write several paragraphs or pages to express an idea clearly, not just in a few meager sentences.

However, we all hate to write long forum posts. As we all know, some readers do not enjoy going through long posts, because it consumes too much time.

Abstract topics, such as philosophy, ethics, and logic, make a lot of trouble in forums. Why? Because that we cannot clarify our semantics in a few sentences. It requires several paragraphs or pages to resolve a single definition.

Some members of this forum shortcut their communication. They write their ideas and critiques only in a few sentences. As we know, this will only make the text ambiguous to other members. These members think that they will save time by writing a few sentences for each idea. They think that they will save the time by not tediously going through several paragraphs or pages to describe each idea.

Wrong! This will only waste more time than doing it in the verbose way. Ambiguous text only bait irrelevant responses, strawmans, and red herrings. In addition, shortcutting their communication will only bait others to badly interpret the text, thus cause threads to go off topic. These threads will get boring, and will eventually end that way. Without a long post clarifying the terminology, those debates will never resolve.

This has happened to my long comments at blogs such as Polycentric Order. This has happened to my long posts here.

Because of this, I usually ignore debating philosophy, ethics, and logic within these forums.

I have now finished typing the first half of my post. In the second half, I will clarify what I had meant in my last post.

Ambiguous Ethical Terminology

Roderick Long has written his argument for "natural law". We should first note that the term "natural law" has multiple definitions. Even Long himself confused the definitions.

Now we can see where Rollins' critique has gone wrong. Rollins is thinking of natural rights as if they were a special kind of legal right — a right legislated by God or Nature rather than by the state. Given that assumption, what he says makes sense: legal rights are of little value unless they are also de facto rights. (When Rollins refers to "real rights" as "those rights actually conferred and enforced by the laws of a State or the customs of a social group," he clearly has in mind de facto rights.) Just as it does me no good to have a legal right on paper that the state pays lip service to in theory but systematically ignores in practice, so it does me no good to have a natural right inscribed in the Law of Nature if no one is willing or able to enforce that right.

But this is the wrong way to think about natural rights. A natural right isn't a legal right, it's a normative right. To claim that natural rights don't protect anything is to miss the point; natural rights are supposed to receive protection, not to provide it. Likewise, the function of Natural Law is not to protect any claims, but rather to tell us which claims deserve protection. As normative concepts, natural rights provide guidance for people's conduct. Blaming natural rights for not protecting us is like blaming a cookbook for not making dinner. Cookbooks don't make dinner for us; their purpose is to teach us how to make dinner for ourselves. Likewise, Natural Law doesn't lead our lives for us; its purpose is to guide us in the living of our own lives.3

Long here wins the first argument.

However, Long had used a different definition of "natural rights" than what Rothbard uses. In addition, he has conflated "natural rights" and "natural law," which could mean two distinct topics.

A user named "wilderness" at the Mises Community has made the same mistake.

Taken to the further extreme it's why some can't figure out why protecting somebody's natural rights is in each individuals best interest. It's why somebody comes along and states, they "don't give a damn about liberty"... it's sickening. And why they can't understand murder, rape, and theft is not helpful. Secondly, cause of somebody like Rollins who is really confused.

Wilderness has conflated the "natural rights" written in the U.S. Constitution with the "natural law" of Rothbard.

Rollins is more willing than most critics of Natural Law to face the logical consequences of his position. But if morality is merely a tool for manipulating other people into doing what one wants, one wonders why people ever wrestle privately with moral dilemmas, why they ever find themselves compelled by conscience to do something that is unwelcome not only to themselves but to those around them.

More importantly, though, the question is why we should accept Rollins' claim that nothing is right or wrong and nothing is entitled to reverence. These are extraordinary claims, claims that run contrary to our ordinary beliefs and practices, and so the burden of proof rests with the person making such claims.

Long used a different definition of 'morality' than Rollins. Rollins does not reject 'morality' in the sense what Long uses. Therefore, Long made a strawman argument.

Long argues this from the "performative contradiction." Some self-identified "objectivists" use performative contradiction argument to criticize "subjectivism." They argue that "subjectivists believe that everything originate from subjective preference, but deny subjectivism itself as a subjective preference." However, the self-identified "objectivists" use a different definition of "subjectivism" than what the self-identified "subjecitivists" themselves do. The self-identified "subjectivists" could refute that argument by showing that each side uses a different definition of "subjective." They use the term "subjective" to mean beliefs and values in the mind.

Although we should not reject the "performative contradiction" as a valid argument, the performative contradiction argument has potential flaws. Its flaws stem from the soundness of its premises. The soundness of a performative contradiction argument depends on the soundness of its premises.

Some examples of performative contradiction arguments:

• It is self-contradictory to reject the Aristotelian laws of identity, the excluded middle, and non-contradiction.
• It is self-contradictory to reject Ludwig von Mises' law of human action.
• It is self-contradictory to reject Ludwig von Mises' psychological egoism.
• It is self-contradictory to reject "cogito, ergo sum."
• It is self-contradictory to reject Murray Rothbard's argument for self-ownership.
• It is self-contradictory to reject Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics.
• It is self-contradictory to reject Stephen Kinsella's estoppel argument.
• It is self-contradictory to reject Stefan Molyneux's universally preferable behavior.
• It is self-contradictory to reject Ayn Rand's, Douglas Rasmussen's, and Douglas Den Uyl's attempts to derive "ought" from "is."

Long conflated five different definitions of "amoralism."

In the moral case, for example, Rollins, a self-proclaimed "amoralist," chooses to hold on to what most would view as a highly implausible belief — the belief that there is nothing wrong with "murder, rape, robbery, or torturing children" — and to reject more plausible beliefs whenever they come into conflict with that one.

The first definition of "amoralism" signifies the descriptive notion that "rights do not tangibly exist." In the second sense, the term "amoralism" functions as a mere synonym for "quasi-realism" or "moral fictionalism." The third sense signifies the notion that using terms such as "right" and "wrong" in describing ethical commands can create conflicts between the interpretation of rights and grey areas. In the fourth sense "amoralism" signifies that "I do not feel any empathy for others. Therefore, I want to legalize rape and murder." The fifth sense of "amoralism" signifies irrelevant to morality, for example, "science is amoral because it does not deal with normative opinions."

Rollins probably used "amoralism" in the third sense, while Long probably used "amoralism" in the fourth sense.

We may think of our evolutionarily-implanted normative impulses as playing a role in moral reasoning analogous to the role that sensory experience plays in scientific reasoning. The data of the senses are one of the most important sources of our beliefs about how the universe works. But we are not confined to the sensory level. Our capacity for reason drives us to try to build up a conceptual picture of the universe that makes sense; and although we rely heavily on sensory data in building that picture, if we have to sacrifice some sensory data in order to achieve a scientific picture that makes a little more sense — if we have to decide that, despite initial appearances, the earth isn't flat, the sun doesn't circle it, and tables aren't continuously solid all the way down — then some of what the senses tell us may have to be scrapped for the sake of a more intellectually satisfying theory.

Long has used confusing terms such as "sensation," "perception," and "conception." He then equivocates "evolutionarily-implanted normative impulse" with the "sensory level." He has failed to define these three terms.

Likewise, our evolutionarily-implanted moral impulses are one of the most important sources of our beliefs about how we ought to live. But we are not confined to the instinctual level. Our capacity for reason drives us to try to build up a conceptual picture of right and wrong that makes sense; and although we rely heavily on innate impulses in building that picture, if we have to disregard some of our innate impulses in order to achieve a moral picture that makes a little more sense — if we have to decide that, despite our initial impulses, we shouldn't kill animals for food — then some of what our moral instincts tell us may have to be scrapped for the sake of a more intellectually satisfying ethic. Once again, a purely evolutionary account of our sense of morality, however illuminating, will be importantly incomplete.

Long presupposes a dichotomy between "innate impulse" and "reason." He then equivocates "innate impulse" with "evolutionarily-implanted normative impulse." I believe that Long has used a strawman argument against Rich Hammer. Hammer does not want to abolish "ethical reasoning" altogether in place of "evolutionarily-implanted normative instincts." If Hammer however wanted to abolish "ethical reasoning" altogether, then he would not have written his book.

This article is yet another example of how terminological differences can create chaos. Just imagine if we had resolved all of our terminological differences...

Ex Post Facto Rationalizations in Ethics

Below is a full reply to Cork's post on abortion:

The legitimacy of abortion should have nothing to do with your interpretation of the non-aggression and the proportionality principle. The non-aggression principle can have potentially arbitrary interpretations.

As you know, not all self-described "libertarian anarchists" hold the same views. For instance, some libertarians support animal rights, some oppose abortion, some criticize retributive punishment, and some others support some parental authority. Those views conflict and compete with one another to attract attention.

As we have said previously, one could interpret the non-aggression principle in about a gazillion ways. Some anti-abortionists might feel cognitive dissonance, and thus interpret abortion as a form of aggression. Likewise, some others may interpret retributive punishment as a form of invasion against the criminal. Let us recall the problems of interpreting the non-aggression principle.

Does does the "non-aggression principle" allow "right to self-defense" or the "right to violently punish others"? Does the "non-aggression principle" allow trespassing or hate speech? We will show that the term "aggression" is highly vague.

Some will define "aggression" as "the initiation of physical violence." However, the term physical violence is also vague. Does "physical violence" include noise pollution? Does it include perceived threats of violence? Does "physical violence" include fraud? Whether noise pollution, threats of violence, and fraud are "physical violence" still begs the question.

Libertarians usually defend the right for broadcasters to homestead radio frequencies. However, if a malicious broadcaster "trespasses" another broadcaster's radio frequency, can we label this as "physical violence"? Obviously, the criminal changed nothing physical or tangible. This, also, begs the question whether if we should consider it as "physical violence." This same argument applies with the ownership of domain names.

Consequentially, it begs the question to ask whether anti-defamation laws violate the non-aggression principle. It also begs the question to ask whether the prohibition of nuclear weapons violate the non-aggression principle. In addition, it begs the question to ask whether ordering carbon dioxide polluters to pay restitution violates the non-aggression principle.

Libertarians define "individual sovereignty" as a state in which no one commits aggression against any individual. So far so good.

However, as we recall above, the word "aggression" has arbitrary interpretations. As a result, "individual sovereignty," which depends on the definition of "aggression," also has arbitrary interpretations. I found your usage of "self-ownership" in you elucidation above, therefore, as problematic.

As a consequence, we should only establish the definition of "libertarianism," "non-aggression principle," and "self-ownership" only prototypically. By "prototypically" we meant the prototype theory of classification. Libertarianism does not have any clear-cut "essence," and so does not "aggression" and "personal sovereignty."

Let us take abortion as an example of the arbitrariness of law.

The genuine causes of the abortion controversy arise from religion, empathy, and the definition of life.

Referring to the non-aggression principle constitutes as a type of cognitive dissonance. Judges, for example, use the law to legitimize their evil decrees. They have the power to interpret the law in any biased way, even though the law appears "objective" to the general population.

Legitimizing morality in the name of "it confirms/violates the non-aggression principle" is an appeal to the rule of law. It does not state any reason of the immorality itself, but an appeal to the law of non-aggression. It also begs the question if specific acts violate the non-aggression principle.

"Unborn babies" are parasites and if the mother does not want one in her body, she should not be forced to support one.

I have an objection. It depends on your definition of "parasite."

Aging can also be considered a parasite. So does cancer. If cancer is a parasite, does it give any right for the patient to steal money from a rich person for his treatment? It is a type of theft against the rich person.

Anti-abortionists consider fetuses as living beings. Like the cancer patent, the mother does not have any right to murder against another person, the fetus.

However, I do not oppose abortion. I am making a point that the non-aggression principle and laws can have potentially arbitrary interpretations, and could possibly justify any evil behavior.

The reason the cancer patient should not be allowed to steal from a "rich person" is because the rich person is *not* the parasite.

That is a common objection, but it still depends on the your interpretation of "parasite."

You agree that life is more valuable than property. The rich person can be interpreted as a kind of "parasite" you allow the person to be rich at the expense of killing someone. The rich person could just donate his money on the condition that the mother does not abort the child. So the rich person is causing the mother the kill her child by not donating to the mother. Therefore, you are valuing the rich person's property greater that you value the fetus's life. You do not support subsidizing the mother giving birth instead of aborting her child.

The law forbids murder and rape. Therefore, the would-be murderers and the would-be rapists cannot satisfy their preferences. The would-be victims of murder and rape are technically "parasites" in a sense, because we our preferences for life and against rape are brought about the expense of the preferences of the murderers and rapists. The victims of rape and murder are parasites in a sense and the murderers and rapists are the "victims" in a sense.

So do laws that forbid petty crimes such as adultery. Suppose a wife has cheated on her husband with another man. The wife, here, can both be a victim and a predator. She is a "victim" of the in the sense that the anti-adultery law does not grant her the liberty to cheat on her husband, then punished for it. She is an predator in a sense since she violated the adultery law and that she has angered her husband.

So the rich person can technically be interpreted as a parasite, in a sense. The enforcement of property rights have positive effects on the intelligent and the productive people, at the expense of the unproductive, the lazy, and the dim-witted people. Since the rich person is rich because of property rights, he is a parasite to the poor people. And, because, the enforcement of "property rights" is just a law that makes some more productive at the expense of others, it can form parasites and the exploited: The enforcement of property rights exploit the mentally incompetent, the disabled people, and the unproductive people.

The rich person is a parasite to the fetus in a way that the rich is not subsidizing the mother on the condition that the mother will not abort the fetus.

My point is that the rich person can be interpreted as a "parasite" in a sense, depending on one's self-knowledge. But we have to go back to my original point is that it is circular reasoning to justify laws from the non-aggression principle. It begs the question.

Anti-murder laws restrain the would-be murderer's liberty at the expense of the would-be victim's liberty to be alive. Anti-adultery laws retrain the would-be cheater's liberty at the expense of the spouse's liberty to not be cheated. Property laws restrain the disabled, lazy, mentally incompetent, and the unproductive's liberty at the expense of the liberty of the productive, efficient, and intelligent to create wealth. Pro-abortion laws restrain the fetus's liberty to stay alive at the expense of the rich person's willingness to not donate money to the pregnant mother.

Those who violate the non-aggression principle are labelled parasites, predators, aggressors, or criminals. Those who have experienced a violation of the non-aggression principle are called the victims, the prey, the exploited.

So terms such as "parasite," "predator," "aggressor," "tortfeasor," "criminal," "victim," and "prey" depend on one's definition or interpretation of the non-aggression principle or the law. These terms have different meanings according to one's perspective to the law.

Even libertarians themselves have different meanings for these terms. Some libertarians oppose retributive punishment, some oppose abortion, and some support animal rights. They therefore, have different interpretations of the words such as "parasite," "predator," and "victim." Your argument for abortion is like telling a libertarian who supports animal rights that the abused animals are not the "victims" of human "predators." Since they hold a differing interpretation of "aggression," your usage of these terms are circular, and might never influence them.

This is the reason why your sophistic arguments do not work. What we should be really debating with the anti-abortionists is religion and what constitutes human life.

Here's an example of natural law:

1. Each and every individual should enjoy the full product of his labor. No one else other than the individual can accurately estimate cost of labor that he has worked to produce a good. Therefore, no one else can exchange his good with another good or take his good without the individual's permission because the cost labor he has put into producing the good may be more than others may have perceived. Exchanging a good without consent should be forbidden because the individual may lose some fruits of his labor due to the fact that others may underestimate how much labor one worked to produce that good.
2. If both parties agree to exchange, the exchange is voluntary. Each individual can accurately estimate how much labor he has worked to produce his respective good. Each individual can also estimate the usability of his traders' goods. Therefore, both would maintain their full products of their labor, plus the value each benefited from the exchange.

Organizational Structures in Market Anarchism

Peter G. Klein has written a new criticism to the "left-libertarians" on organization theory. Both Klein and the "left-libertarians" have made some errors. We will identify some problems with the arguments pointed out by both sides below.

Klein, who cited Rothbard as a source, may have performed the argument to authority. Klein used Rothbard's "critique" of agorism, to exploit Rothbard's overwhelming popularity within libertarianism, to push his point-of-view. However, Rothbard, in his critique, entirely strawmanned Konkin's agorism.

Rothbard, in the first portion of his article, misinterpreted Konkin's objections to voluntary corporations and joint stock companies. Rothbard thought that Konkin wants to aggressively forbid the development of these organizations. Rothbard misinterpreted the statement "Konkin opposes wage labor."

Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella, and Murray Rothbard use and interpret the word "oppose" to mean that they oppose actions that violates merely the non-aggression principle.

However, the Aristotelian liberals, such as Roderick Long, defines morality differently. Aristotelian liberalism, which simply denotes a brand of market anarchism that preaches virtue ethics, defines "morality" as a broader system beyond the meta-normative conception of rights. The term "morality," in this sense, can imply voluntary ethical systems that does not necessary coincide with the non-aggression principle. When an Aristotelian liberal says that he "oppose something," he might actually mean that he want to voluntarily persuade others to avoid doing that thing. Likewise, when Roderick Long says that he "morally opposes wage labor," he actually meant to voluntarily advocate alternative arrangements besides wage labor. Long made a similar claim in his libertarian feminism article. When Long said that he "morally oppose prostitution," he actually meant that he wanted to voluntarily abolish prostitution by persuading prostitutes to look for alternative occupations.^[1]

We should not use the term "corporation" due to its vagueness. Often, people conflate the term "corporation" in its legitimate sense and "corporation" in the illegitimate sense. In its illegitimate sense, the term "corporation" signifies state privilege; and "corporation" its legitimate sense signifies an orgazation with limited liability contracts with explicit consent by all parties. This terminological barrier confuses the whole debate.^[2]

In addition, a "corporation" could mean a network of independent contractors,^[3] to borrow this phrase from Peter G. Klein. One could conceptualize this by imagining independent contractors as employees. Even in the real world, we find it hard to distinguish an independent contractor from an employee in the legal sense. Some might define the two terms as the degree of boss control, but we cannot find any strict distinction between independent contractor and employee. How much boss control, specifically, would make the worker an employee instead of an independent contractor? Because we cannot indentify the essential characterists of independent contractors from employment, some would denote these two terms as synonymous.

The term "firm," like "corporation," also has a fuzzy denotation. A firm, for example, could mean a loose association of smaller firms. A firm could also man a cartel agreement among competing sub-firms, or a "business trust." Could we label a joint venture itself a firm even that it comprises of two smaller firms? If we go further with this, we could even label each "independent contractor" as a firm. One could simply imagine an independent contractor as a firm that associates with another firm that pays for its services. The arbitrariness of the term "firm" makes it hard for some to decode its meaning in certain contexts, such as the size of the firm in a free market. We cannot make a valid argument that the median firm will employ less workers in a free market, because of the vagueness of the term "firm."

However, I understand the gist of what the "left-libertarians" mean when they talk about "smaller firms" in a free market. We can rephrase this ideas to this:

Workers will have greater control over his workplace, instead of the CEOs and senior managers monopolizing control; management will be delegated to more specialized workers instead of unspecialized CEOs and senior managers; power will be distributed more evenly among the workplace; workers will have more freedom from boss commands

Obviously, I criticize the second half of Rothbard's article in defense of the reformist political process. Rothbard's critique of the U.S. Libertarian Party seems to not understand that Konkin opposes them on strategical grounds, not merely on meta-normative grounds.

Overall, Rothbard's wrote his article in an extremely legalistic tone. First, Rothbard strawmanned Konkin that he wants to illegalize corporations and wage labor. Secondly, Rothbard strawmanned agorists for their alleged belief them illegalizing the U.S. Libertarian Party and illegitimacy of voting. Even in an agoristic point-of-view, agorists do not want to illegalize either one of them. Agorists do meant "immoral" by "illegal."

When the agorists label corporations and hierarchy as "immoral," they do not mean that they want to prohibit them. They mean by a prediction that workers will find a lesser degree of hierarchy in a free market. The agorists also label "voting" as "immoral" because they consider voting as strategically counterproductive.

Rothbard, in a paragraph, uses over-systematized nonsense to defend the right for slaves to vote:

Let's put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master but idiotic if we failed to do so. Of course, there might well be circumstances — say when both masters are similar — where the slaves would be better off not voting in order to make a visible protest — but this is a tactical not a moral consideration. Voting would not be evil but, in such a case, less effective than the protest.

Rothbard therefore strawmanned the agorists. Like Rothbard, the agorists also defened the right to vote. However, the agorists oppose voting on strategic grounds. Aside from the deontological moral arguments against voting, agorists oppose voting mainly for its impracticality and its bad consequences. Some agorists even have created a moral rule against voting because of its impracticality and its bad consequences.

I see problems with the term "agorism" because of its ambiguity. An "agorist" could mean a Carsonian mutualist who opposes stick ownership of capital and land. That just does not accurately describe my positions.

Setting terminology aside, the term "agorist" has another problem. Some agorists strategically support the black markets and unions. However, I previously described black markets and unions as counterproductive:

Anarcho-capitalists who advocate political reform is functionally a classical liberal, since they do the same thing. Similarly, a market-anarchist who supports syndicalism is functionally an anarcho-syndicalist. An agorist who only sells prohibited drugs is functionally the same to all of the other non-libertarian workers in the black market. Non-straightforward ways of promoting libertarianism are thus highly inefficient.

I emphasized above that grey markets differ from black markets. Grey markets, unlike black markets, can actually work. I support grey markets for its decreased risk.

I also see problems with the term "mutualism." However, that does not imply that I consider the current system as the lesser evil than a mutualist society. Indeed, like most Rothbardian market anarchists, I would rather live in a mutualist society than in any corporatist system, if I had to choose from these two options. Furthermore, if someone opposes the term "mutualism," it does not imply that she opposes allying with the mutualists. Someone can still hold an ardent alliance with the mutualists even if she dislikes to describe herself as a "mutualist."

I have read most of the chapters in Kevin Amos Carson's book Organization Theory. Ninety percent of its chapters deals with empirical "case studies." These "case studies" look redundant and uninteresting. I learned noting new from this book, as I already know the corporate privileges beforehard. Many market anarchists know that there exists significant principal-agent problems in all organizations, such as the oversight costs of employing workers and communication barriers. For proof, I commented about this at Francois Tremblay's blog:

I agree that employment has the principle-agent problem caused from asymmetrical information. I know the significant communication barriers and oversight costs of employing a worker. I also know that in the current system, the employer can give arbitrary orders to the worker whatever the employer feels like it. I agree that in a free society, more independent firms would function.

In a free society, more workers would create independent firms. Instead of the worker agreeing on a contract allowing the employer give arbitrary orders without any extra compensation, the worker owning his or her own firm would have more motivation to innovate instead of doing tedious work that the employer demands. Productivity and innovation would increase and the worker would actually appreciate their work.

I commented the above before Kevin Carson even released his chapter of how productivity and innovation would increase, and oversight costs will decrease under a free market. I commented this on October 7, 2008, but Kevin Carson released his chapter about this on November 2, 2008. Even Stephan Kinsella mentioned the obviousness of these agency costs in all organizations, before Kevin Carson released his chapter.

Therefore I regard Carson's book as a total waste of time. Many other anarcho-capitalists, such as Stephan Kinsella and Peter G. Klein, knew the problems of business organizations without even reading Carson's book.

Furthermore, I carefully noticed the differing definitions of "social hierarchy":

If you define a hierarchy as the criminals above-the-law who defends the state’s existence, I would oppose hierarchies. If you define a hierarchy as any middleman, such as those who transports goods throughout the society, I would support the hierarchies that function voluntarily.

---

[1]

I commented about this at Polycentric Order:

The word "oppose" has multiple meanings. In an article on Libertarian Feminism, Charles W. Johnson and Roderick T. Long "opposed" prostitution. However, they still support the right for individuals to exchange sex for money. They had used "oppose" to mean that they want to voluntarily abolish prostitution, but still support the right to exchange sex for money.

Likewise, when mutualists say that they "oppose wage labor," they do not mean that they oppose the right to create employment contracts. They mean by a prediction that workers will find better ways to make money instead of following the orders of his employer.

[2]

I commented about this at Polycentric Order:

Even though I oppose "corporations" in the sense of state privilege and involuntary limited liability "contracts," I still support "corporations" in the sense of purely voluntary limited liability contracts between two explicitly consenting parties.

[3]

I had previously used the phrase assocation of independent contractors in place of network of indepent contractors at Polycentric Order

you cannot assume that worker cooperatives will have less problems than an association of independent contractors ... Comparatively, democratically-controlled worker cooperatives would have more agency problems than an association of independent contractors.

---

Left-libertarians argue that in a free market, there would be "less" "vertically integrated" firms, partially got that idea from Kevin Carson, and from their logic. However, this is not true.

First, they did not agree to a definition of what a "vertically integrated firm" is. All factories are "vertically integrated firms" because they seperate the production processes to different machines. In this way, vertically integrated firms exist because they are more efficient, and do not have to pay for the cost for transportation, etc.

So, certain types of "vertically integrated firms" are more efficient. However, they also argue that because of our current monopoly of firms, there would be less because competition undermines these inefficient vertically integrated firms. They are using the words "but" in "but there would be less" without thinking about others.

There would be MORE vertically integrated firms and corporations in a free market because there are no barriers to entry to start a corporation or a vertically integrated firm in a free market. So arguing that there would be less "corporations and more private contractors" in a free market is nonsense.

Also, many libertarians argue on blatant geographical assumptions. For example, some left-libertarians argue that everything in anarchism is privatized. However, there could exist unprivatized land and atmosphere. For instance, Hans-Hermann Hoppe defend "immigration reduction" on the assumption that all land and atmosphere is privatized so many people would use them to block transportation. Another example is the belief in collectivist roads from left-libertarians, as they argue because all land is private, there should be some collective transporation to prevent the owners to charge high tolls.

Also, left-libertarians are more sympathetic to anarcho-communists. This is false. Anarcho-communism is a type of collectivist anarchism, where the workers and people collectively own all the means of production. This includes the military. Why would anarcho-communists have respect to the individual when the military is collectively controlled by the workers, just like democracy? Hence, anarcho-communism is a dictatorship by the workers.

---

Limited liability can be specified by contracts, but in the current situation, some limited liability businesses has an advantage over unlimited liability businesses. Suppose a robotic truck driver runs over your property. This cannot be contractually enforced because you did not buy the truck. The owner from the truck driving company cannot get sued, because he has a state-granted limited liability privelage. Therefore, the owner can malinvest by producing more robotic truck drivers regardless of safety to get money. The business, however, is protected by the state.

If you attempt to use PDAs defend against the truck driver in a statist society, you are liable for damaging their property. But in an anarchist society, you can use private defence agencies to offer compensation from the truck company.

However, because our current situation is not a market anarchist society, the trucking business cannot be compensated by PDAs because they are protected by the state. Thus, in some situations, limited liability is a priveladge from the state.

Another thing is their limited liability from intellectual property violations. They have an advantage in making products that violate patents. This is unfair to unlimited liability businesses. But the main problem is the legality of IP laws, which should be eliminated along with the state.

Yes, do not mistake me--some limited liability can be specified by contracts--but some do not and is a priveledge of the state.

Libertarian Labeling and Stereotyping

The last time I commented on Polycentric Order, I decided to do a critique of the "vulgar libertarian" concept. When I saw the term "vulgar libertarian" showing up on many of their previous posts, I eventually decided to give a shot on my objection to the term. After posting my criticism, the audience reacted furiously, winning the "troll of the year" awards. I think that I deserve the blame for not expressing my intentions clear enough.

Since then, in the midst of the confusion, at the risk of losing my prized, and patient, subscribers of my blog, I decided to overcome the miscommunication. The deteriorating post quality here, as you all may know, presents a significant barrier to rational understanding.

From time to time, we post these little, obnoxious, "anarcho-semantic" ramblings. This time, we will attempt to "solve" the mysteries of the "left"-libertarian game.

This article contains seven different sections, with each section devoting to an entirely distinct motive. To start the article, we will focus on our introductory section with FSK's comment that I did never reply. Second, we will investigate the logical fallacies that David Z. and BrainPolice have put in action. Third, we will began a rambling section discrediting the "troll." Fourth, we find an amazing confusion in BrainPolice, as well as other market anarchists, has attempted to "refute." Fifth, we will show that I am not paranoid in believing that some of the "left"-libertarians have played Devil's Advocate into conspiring a propaganda show. Sixth, we will argue that I am more "left" than even of the most vocal "left"-libertarians on the net. And finally, we will analyze the confusions between different libertarian circles.

You cannot arbitrarily interpret the non-aggression principle

FSK has posted in the past few months about the state.

Violent protests are a waste of time, because the State has superior resources. Violent protests create sympathy for the State, and violent protests are a violation of the Non-Aggression principle.

I disliked FSK's statement. I commented claiming that no one can interpret the non-aggression principle. FSK responded that "You are a troll" without any given explanation.

I criticized his statement because, as said above, that no one, can "interpret the non-aggression principle." It is impossible, to "interpret" the non-aggression principle, because it begs the question. To determine if an action constitutes aggression, one should define if the action constitutes an aggressive act or not. It is circular reasoning to "interpret" that a violent overthrow contradicts non-aggression principle, while at the same time the non-aggression principle defines defensive overthrow of the state as non-aggressive.

You can only define actions that falls into aggressive and non-aggressive types, not interpret these actions.

Let us say if some consider libel and defamation as aggressive acts. They will therefore interpret the non-aggression principle incorrectly, claming that libel and slander as aggressive acts. In order to resolve that, you have to define the non-aggression principle to tolerate libel and defamation. Murray Rothbard defined slander as a non-aggressive act in his Ethics of Liberty.

There exists multiple interpretations of whether a violent overthrow of the state constitutes an aggressive act. Some would say no, arguing that it is justifiable to use defensive violence to overthrow the criminal organization. They argue that it is their right to self-defend the statist aggressors, in proportion to the damaged they caused. Some others would say yes, it contradicts the non-aggression principle, since they interpret the non-aggression principle differently.

In summary, FSK should have defined that the non-aggression principle forbids aggressive overthrow of the state, not the other way around. It is circular reasoning if you did the latter.

I am not a "Vulgar Libertarian"

Let us say that you showed an argument to me. If I criticize the accuracy of a few specific details in your argument, you might apprehend that I reject the general idea of the argument. But I will respond to you that rejecting to specific parts, such as specific facts and inaccuracies of an argument, does not imply that I reject the "general idea" of the argument. You might, however, see my rejections of the specific parts of your argument, as strawmans to the "general idea." We will call this behavior the "double-strawman fallacy."

I have experienced the double-strawman fallacy in many cases. At one time, David Z. posted an example of the monetization of debt, showing the value of the dollar falling down. I responded to a specific factual inaccuracy, that the consumer price index (CPI) does not accurately represent the valuation of the dollar. David, however, thought that I rejected the "general idea" of his argument that the value of the currency has gone down. So he deleted my comment. But due to the double-strawman fallacy, David thought that my criticism of the CPI made me reject the "general idea" of the whole blog post, in which I actually believed the opposite.

Let us go back to BrainPolice's blog. I responded to his usage of "vulgar libertarian" in his most recent article at that time, because I get confused over his definition of "vulgar libertarian." BrainPolice used the term "vulgar libertarian" in his post entitled Positive and Negative Liberty:

BrainPolice said: In this context, a libertarian can consistantly [sic] advocate concepts such as mutual aid and cooperative management. This usually devolves into vulgar and thin libertarians denying the reconciliation vs. neo-artistotileans [sic] and left-libertarians defending such a reconciliation.

I do not know how BrainPolice defines the term "vulgar libertarian." I critiqued his usage of the term "vulgar libertarian." I did not mean to criticise his whole statement quoted above, only his usage of the term.

BrainPolice used the double-strawman fallacy when he criticized my "vulgar libertarian" statement. When I respond to BrainPolice questioning the definition of the term, BrainPolice assumed that I disagreed with the "general idea," of the statement, that "mutual aid and co-ops are consistent with libertarian legal theory." Just because I questioned the "vulgar libertarian" concept, it does not mean that I oppose his overall statement. In fact, I recognize the right for anyone to mutually aid one another and to form co-ops, and I even believed that co-ops may sometimes benefit the workers.

Am I a "Troll"?

I do not understand trolls. I do not understand how some individuals will purposefully make "false claims" to "provoke" responses. I do not understand why the "troll" will waste his time writing posts to provoke responses.

Usually, most of the people who are identified as "trolls" are not actually trolls. They did not intended to cause conflict, nor did they intended to post false information. Most of the time, the ones who accuse others for trolling will disagree with the "troll's" opinions so strongly that the troll seemed to intentionally make false claims. Even if the "troll" is just sharing his honest opinion on something, when others disagree with his opinions so strongly as "fringe," the other people will get an illusion that the "troll" is really intentionally making "fringe" statements, just because they disagree with his opinions so much. This occurs frequently. For most of the time, I see many people getting identified as "trolls" when their opinions are just "fringe." The trolls are just sharing an opinion that the majority of the users disagree. If there is no opposition party or some defenders of the fringe opinions held by the "trolls," even a small minority can convince everyone on the message board that he is a troll.

Neither do I understand how some will get "offended" by messages posted by "trolls" or messages that seemed to contain errors. Why wouldn't the individual simply ignore the messages posted by "trolls" if they do not want to get offended? I do not understand how just some text displayed on a computer monitor will get people offended.

Additionally, I do not understand how the "troll" likes to "mischievously" "force" others to respond to the message. If the "troll" thought that he is actually being "mischievous," then wouldn't he just feel guilty of "abusing" everyone else? Wouldn't his guilt encourage him to not "troll" on message boards anymore?

An objection to the above statement is that he is just a "psychopath" who does not feel empathy or guilt for his actions, so he can mischievously "provoke" responses continuously. This argument seems a rightful objection, since in reality there are some people who behave like that. But in my experience, the vast majority of the cases of accusing others for being a "troll" is wrongfully convicted. The "troll" is just sharing his opinions that happens to be "fringe" for the majority of the users, and when there are no opposition party or defenders of his "fringe" opinions. Therefore, the "troll" who is honestly sharing his opinions will get wrongfully convicted simply because the majority disagrees with him.

But there exists some objections to the above statement. Some will say that they can tell whether a troll is "indeed" behaving "mischievous" or not. However, as we discussed above, many individuals have an illusion that the troll is being "mischievous," merely when they strongly disagree with his opinions. Often, people mistakenly see a person as behaving "mischievous" or intentionally "provocative" simply when we disagree with his opinions. We call this cognitive bias the "dissident-troll bias."

Due to "collective reinforcement" of everyone on the message board, the one posting "fringe opinions" will more likely to be identified as a "troll," simply because more people are disagreeing with the "fringe opinions".

My point is that "trolls," are wrongfully convicted in the majority of the cases. Anyway, let us go back to the topic.

I cannot even discern the reason why would anyone spread "fringe" ideas around the web in the first place. It does not work, others will ignore the messages, and it wastes the time of the person.

BrainPolice on "Economic Rent"

When I criticized the market anarchists' assumption that "economic rent" will fall to zero, BrainPolice replied using the red herring fallacy. Red herring fallacies are common when debating with someone else using words that have multiple definitions. In fact, BrainPolice fell on exactly that. He did not even know what "economic rent" means. The terms "economic rent" and "rent" mean completely different concepts. BrainPolice got confused with "economic rent" with "rent," so he interpreted my statement as "market anarchists oppose rent." He preceded, as usual, to refute that claim.

BrainPolice thought that I was criticizing Benjamin Tucker's prediction that rent (in the non-economic sense) will fall to zero. However, I was actually writing about economic rent, not rent.

If you look up "economic rent" in a dictionary, you will find the meaning similar to the "return on investment" from a capitalist's deterred time preference.

To prove this, Benjamin Tucker had actually rejected economic rent. Market anarchists also seemed to have a incorrect view of economic rent. They predict that non-entrepreneurial income earned by firms will fall to zero. While market anarchists correctly reject that rent would fall to zero (in the non-economic sense), they seemed to have a confusion on economic rent, as the mutualists did.

Homesteading abondoned property according to the Lockean theory is logical, but many self-identified market anarchists support some kinds of "homesteading" that might cause shortages. For example, they may oppose rent for some kinds of land and apartment buildings. Their belief is based on historical examples of feudal societies steal in the disguise as "rent."

Feudal societies do not compete so they can collude to set rent. But due to today's many land owners, it is almost impossible to form a cartel to set a high rent price.

However, in non-feudal societies, land should not be "homesteaded" while paying rent. If the society prohibits rent, then the owners would not offer the service in the first place. For example, if apartment rent is prohibited by "homesteading", then investors would not have the incentive to build apartments for people in the first place. "Homesteading" an apartment is a form of rent control, so it would cause shortages.

If people are freely to "homestead" arbitrary land, numerous questions arise. How much land should they homestead? If they mixed their labor with large pieces of land, should they allow it. What is the maximum of land can they possess? They can "cheat" by homesteading" large amounts of land by just using their low quality labor. Thus, no land is available.

Land, like other resources, are a natural resource. Therefore, they are limited to constraints. In order to perform the best use of land, land should not be "stolen" to allow marginal utility.

Murray Rothbard has proved that the price of rent equals the value of the good divided by the natural interest rate. For example, one rents a good priced at $1000 per year and the natural interest rate is 5%, then the actual price of the good is $1000/0.05 = $20,000.

This is an effect of entrepreneurs. If an entrepreneurs see that he can build an apartment at $20,000 and later get $1000, he might do it. But his decision is based on other stuff. It is equivalent that if he knew that he can also invest in a bank at interest by lending $20,000 and receiving $1,000 one year later as interest (at a rate of 5%). If his estimates that his interst from investing in apartments is greater than $1000, he would invest in apartments, and if it is the other way around, he would invest in a bank.

Going back to the apartment example, would a person actually pay $20,000 than rent $1,000 per year? They are equal, and the person can choose to buy it at $20,000 then sell it later or pay $1,000 per year.

If that person is poor, he would actually borrow $20,000 from a bank at 5% interest to buy that apartment. He has to pay back $20,000, plus the 5% interest, which totals $21,000. Thus, lending from a bank to buy the apartment and renting the apartment $1,000 every year costs the same amount of money.

Utimately, abolishing rent would leave the poor person without an apartment because he does not want to take the risk of borrowing that much and/or if the bank does not approve the loan.

Thus, it appears that the self-identified market anarchists do not understand the relationship of interest and rent.

Another consequence of "homesteading" land is the lack of knowledge. If an entrepreneur is buying unused land to build a football field, would he allow others to steal? If the field is unoccupied, others would pollute it. What if he dumps garbage on unused land to prevent theft? That would encorage them to malinvest such as polluting the land to prevent theft or building extreneous houses on land to prevent intrusion.

David Z., had refuted the market anarchist misconception that non-entrepreneurial corporate income is "unnatural." At my blog comment to BrainPolice, I was just trying to make similar criticisms about the market anarchists' objection to economic rent, as David Z. did.

It was actually my fault that I did not define "economic rent" at the time of my writing. I should have defined "economic rent," since lots of individuals do know what "economic rent" is. Anyway, however, I correctly claimed that the market anarchists' object to economic rent.

I am not Paranoid

I have a long-time suspicion that the "left"-libertarians are trying to redefine capitalism and anarcho-capitalism to the way they want it to mean. When I criticized BrainPolice of attempting of doing this, he said that I was wrong.

Anarcho-Mercantilist said: I see BrainPolice and Brad Spangler attempting to redefine anarcho-capitalism as a vulgar, conservative, political and feudalistic plutocracy. BrainPolice tried to deceptively redefine anarcho-capitalism by writing an article that emotionally associates anarcho-capitalists with conservatives. That trademark tactic did not work for me. I still consider myself as an anarcho-capitalist.

BrainPolice said: Nonesense. [sic] Your continual attempt to portray me and others as engaging in a propaganda campaign when we are merely logically extending libertarian principles is a joke.

If the "left"-libertarians aren't truly trying to run a propaganda campaign, then why do they claim that we should normatively redefine capitalism and anarcho-capitalism as a fascist, plutocratic, and paternalistic theology? Why should redefine the terms, when we can use them as-is, as in the dictionary definitions?

Why do the "left"-libertarians go through all of this? (I do not mean all "left"-libertarians):

• http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/867
• http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/610
• http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/611
• http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/868
• http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/793
• http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/05/actually-existing-capitalism.html
• http://www.fff.org/freedom/0193b.asp
• http://bkmarcus.com/blog/2008/04/capitalism-is-a-reclaimed-word
• http://www.blackcrayon.com/essays/capitalism/take3/
• http://perbylund.com/blog/?p=73
• http://notreason.com/2008/12/28/the-troubles-of-an-anarchist-blogger/
• http://www.strike-the-root.com/82/ante/ante1.html
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LeftLibertarian2/message/20152
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LeftLibertarian2/message/20169

...and so on...

All of these above links have articles written by people who want to normatively change the definitions of capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, and the rest of the terms that they dislike. They do not give any explanation of why we should adopt theses new definitions for these terms. The best that they can argue is to go through some historical and ancient definitions of these terms. The historical meanings, however, have since changed since then. So is now proper to use these according to the dictionary definitions.

If the "left"-libertarians say that we should normatively do that, and in this case, redefine the terms, then they are handling them as trademarks. They are exactly doing what the trademark owners do: they want to redefine and "purify" the definitions of these terms to what they want to mean. All trademark redefinitions are, indeed, propaganda campaigns. So it is illogical to argue that redefining capitalism isn't a propaganda campaign, while doing this with trademarks is propaganda.

I liked B.K. Marcus' observation that capitalism is historically defined as the "private ownership of the means of production." Most dictionaries, and including Karl Marx, basically define capitalism that way. The anti-capitalists oppose capitalism simply because they oppose the private ownership of the means of production.

Iain McKay, the main author of An Anarchist FAQ, even defined capitalism the usual way, as the "private ownership of the means of production." McKay posted on Usenet that private property will result in huge disparities of wealth.

It is also strange that the "left"-libertarians like to use the term "free market" when at the same time they object "capitalism." The term "free market" has just about the same meanings and connotations as "capitalism." I do not understand why they go contrary on these two terms.

This is proof that most of the anti-capitalists simply oppose the private ownership of the means of production.

I am more on the "left" than the "left"-libertarians

If I used BrainPolice's definition of "vulgar libertarian," then paradoxically, I am much less "vulgar" than most of the self-identified "left"-libertarians.

For example, IMHO, David Z. seemed to have more "vulgar" personality than me. For example, David Z., a "left"-libertarian, acted like a "vulgar libertarian" when he unconsciously defended the U.S. health care system by denying that U.S. already has socialized health care. Even though he opposes the U.S. health care system, he did never mention the corporatist privileges of the U.S. system. He denied that the U.S. already has socialized health care in his blog post.

I posted a critique of the "vulgar libertarian" concept, as promoted by "left"-libertarians', on another one of my blogs at Proprietary Anarchy. It seems as though the "vulgar libertarian" concept has no meaning to it, since the "left"-libertarians call me as a "vulgar" libertarian when they, themselves, have more "vulgar" tendencies. Therefore, I was curious on how the "left"-libertarians define "vulgar libertarian." So I asked BrainPolice to define the term "vulgar libertarian." But according to his definition, I am, indeed, less "vulgar" than most of the "left"-libertarians.

IMHO, I am also less "vulgar" than John Petrie. John once "defended" the recession as a "natural" "correction" on a blog post. But the recession isn't any "correction" at all. The recession would not occur if the state suddenly became abolished. Therefore, this "recession" isn't a "correction" of the economy, but is caused by continuous taxation and regulation of the economy. If the state suddenly vanished, this recession will turn into the largest economic euphoria in history. But the criminal orginization currently hampers the potential boom into a recession. So there isn't anything "natural" about this. I have already discussed about this in my 15 Mistakes by Austrian Economists post.

I have also refuted John's prediction that the collapse of the U.S. auto industry is "natural". I commented that the auto industry will expand in a free market, because there would be no taxation and regulations that hamper the expansion of the auto industry. Even if the state currently privileges the auto industry, auto industry will expand even more of the state is abolished. This is because there will be no criminal levels of theft and barriers to entry for potential automobile manufacturers in a free market. Because individuals will also be at least five times richer in a free market, individuals would buy more automobiles that would expand the industry. (By 'auto industry', I mean the auto industry in general, not the Big Three cronies.)

These is one reason of why I object to identify myself as a "left"-libertarian. The "left"-libertarians join alliances with the anarcho-collectivists. The "left"-libertarians arrogantly claim that I am more "vulgar" than them, even when, as shown above, that this is entirely the opposite.

If you want to see how should the terms "left" and "right" be defined, then go look at the article called Normative Semantics of Left and Right. This article actually defended the "left" if you used the term "left" correctly. But I still do not identify with the "left" because I reject the whole political spectrum.

Because no formal definition of leftism and rightism exist, people often criticize the other wing using the equivocation fallacies. Left-wingers criticize the right-wing's cultural conservative stereotype when the right-wingers criticize the left's economic stereotypes. They do not even argue about the same thing. Often, the left and right will randomly switch the definitions of the terms to mean one of the above stereotypes, and result in a confusing, convoluted argument with no concrete definitions of the terms left and right.

The real way to avoid the equivocation fallacy, as suggested by Overcoming Bias, is to taboo your words. For example, instead of saying "I oppose capitalism," we can do it in a better way such as "I oppose the private ownership of the means of production." Instead of uttering "I oppose 'left'-libertarianism," I can say "I oppose allying with the libertarian socialists" or "I support the legal possibility for the existence of corporations in the anarchistic legal system."

Kevin Carson misinterpreted my position about the legality of corporations in a free market:

Carlton Hobbs recently challenged the tendency of mainstream libertarians, free marketers and anarcho-capitalists to favor the capitalist corporation as the primary model of ownership and economic activity, and to assume that any future free market society will be organized on the pattern of corporate capitalism.

I did never regard that the corporate legal entity would function as the predominant model in anarchy. I do, however, defend the legal possibility of such legal entity existing in the free market. Actually, I envision an anarcho-capitalist society as radically different than the current fascist state.

I predict that self-employment and small enterprises will function as the predominant business model in anarchy. The median worker will earn five times more wealth, especially without the interventions such as the apprenticeship system, regulations, legal barriers, and extortion. Many workers will become so much wealthier that they can afford to invest their own capital. In a free society, the prevalence of authoritarian management will shrink to virtually nonexistent. Workers will have greater autonomy, and will have a working environment similar to independent contractors. I speculate that interest rates will fall, and innovation will greatly increase.

Semantic disagreements do play a role in every branch of science, not just in political ideologies. The anarcho-capitalists and mutualists would have more in common if we had resolved many of the semantic barriers. This does not, however, mean that anarcho-capitalists should defend, support or even ally with mutualists. Not even close. My opinion is that semantics do play at least some role.

Some "left"-libertarians get "offended" by the word "capitalism" because some mutualists, who ally with Rothbardian "left"-libertarians, oppose the private ownership of the means of production.

Brad Spangler did indeed conspire a propaganda show when he advocated "General Semantics" to make definitions more appealing those who oppose the private ownership of the means of production.

Anyway, I hope this is the last time I make a post on semantics. This is getting tiresome! Let us refocus our energies in countering the real enemy: the state. Forget about this conflict, and let's start our agorist revolution!

Anarchist Communication Guide

Communication as a marketing strategy

Those who use communication to spread ideas commonly use verbal communication. All kinds of communication contains vagueness, semantic barriers and misunderstandings that cause unproductive conflicts. Communication requires an amount of common understanding and definition of language and its use.

Suppose if an individual thought of an idea. The first thing that he should do, involves researching the benefits of communicating his idea in the first place. If he wants to spread his idea to others as a larger strategy in achieving some goal, such spreading his idea of Agorism, he should adhere to the common marketing strategies.

Communication and groupthink

The process of multiple individuals collaborating to create ideas and to solve problems defines groupthink. Groupthink, since it requires a plurality of individuals, requires communication. Members should equip the same definitions of the terms to communicate thoroughly.

However, groupthink has its disadvantages. Because of the effort of communication, it often results in slowness of idea development due to time spent on communication. The time spent speaking and writing out ideas to others may lag the speed of idea creation by hundreds of times. The time spent on communication may constitute 99% of the time, while authentic thinking may constitute merely 1% of the time.

Research their audience

The effort on writing concise and non-vague text consumes too much time. Writers should explain clearly, even though the idea may seem obvious for him, to express his ideas. Writers should research their audience for their jargon and their definitions, in order to avoid semantic disputes and misunderstandings. They also should research the audience's background and knowledge, and define terms that they might confuse.

One thing that communicators often forgot, includes the style of their communication and the attractiveness of the text. They should research his audience's interests and include things that may interest them, in order for them to continue the reading. Using active voice instead of passive voice makes writing more interesting. For example, use The state enslaves people. instead of People are enslaved by the state. Avoid "nots," for example, use Inflation harms instead of Inflation does not help. Truth behaves objectively, instead of Truth does not behave subjectively. The state behaves evilly, instead of No state can behave morally.

Communicators often ignore marketing their text, which in many cases considered the most important step in spreading ideas. Forgetting their marketing strategy undermines their purpose of writing: to spread their idea to as many as possible to promote a cause, such as Agorism. If they do not market their idea as wide of an audience as possible, then why write at all?

Symbol grounding

In order to perform an accurate standard of communication without any semantic conflicts, communicators would often should define their terms concise enough. This challenging task, ironically, often results in incomplete and unclear definitions, due to the confusion within these words that defines the term. John Searle's Chinese room argument considers the theoretical impossibility of defining terms without going contradictory, while not assuming common assumptions.

A partial solution to reduce vagueness involves giving examples demonstrating the definition. Explain examples of physical actions demonstrating what the definition does and does not mean increases clearness. For example, defining defense requires the communicator to explain thoroughly various situations:

• If one physically hit the same individual who had hit himself without his permission, one has defended himself.
• If one put a fence around his property or locked the door to his home, one defended himself.
• No contract existed between Alice and Bob exempting punishment for threatening speech. Bob said a threatening statement I am going to hit you. Alice did not get offended. If Alice hits Bob, Alice has performed self-defense.
• No contract existed between Alice and Bob prohibiting non-threatening speech. Bob said a non-threatening statement: Women are stupid. Alice becomes offended. If Alice hits Bob, Alice would have aggressed against Bob. Therefore, if Alice hits Bob and then Bob hits Alice, Bob has performd self-defense when he hits Alice.

Use concise terms

Counterproductive aphorism

Whenever an anarchist saying aphorism like government is slavery, taxation is theft, or democracy is bad, these phrases would result in semantic disputes if interpreted incorrectly by the interventionist. Interventionist have multiple interpretations of words like theft, is, or government in these contexts.

The term government implies a broad range of definitions, ranging from a state government, to self-government, to corporate government. The latter two definitions can derive from voluntary associations, while the former implies an inherently aggressive association which does slavery. Thus, the phrase The state is slavery. feels more neutral.

Individuals from various backgrounds interpret the word is in this phrase differently. The is word may have interpreted as an inherent property of the "state." However, the term "state" does not possess any inherent positive or negative attribute; its behavior determines its positive or negative attributes. Therefore, Objects are Morally Neutral.

A more neutral method to rewrite the phrase The state is slavery involves replacing the meaning of "slavery" in this context, which equates the state and theft as inherent, to resemble a behavior, like "enslaves." The phrase becomes The state enslaves. However, it contains further vagueness since it does not acknowledge the object that it enslaves. Does the state enslave the working class, the capitalist class, or the bureaucrats? The state does enslave the former, and it does not enslave from the latter two. Appending "us," an object, to the phrase would look more neutral: The state enslaves us. This has clearly shown that the phrase The state enslaves us. looks much more neutral than the phrase Government is slavery.

Interventionists do not interpret the phrase taxation is theft as consistent because they irrationally believe that the state has resulted from a social contract, hence all members implicitly legalized taxation. Though anarchist realize that taxation is theft, the use of the word "theft" to the interventionist would confuse them. Counterproductive strategies such as repeating the vague phrase would do nothing than to incite further conflict and semantic disputes. A more rational strategy involves using concise words and logical arguments to derive that taxation harms rather than helps us.

Ontology

The word "is" in the phrase taxation is theft can imply synonymy for taxation and theft, hence taxation and theft becomes interchangeable.

The word "is" can also imply taxation as a subset of theft, which would imply the word "is" behaves as an injective relation.

The word "is" can further imply that there exist only one classification of the subject. For example, the look at the definition of a dog: A dog is a species of mammal. The "is" would imply that the term dog does not have any definition other than a species of mammal. Because individuals would interpret the word "is" as an injective relation, other definitions such as humans commonly keep dogs as pets, or dogs bark, should not exist. An ontological or ultimate categorization of "dogs" does not exist. Because this does not exist, this refutes the connotation that the word "is" behaves like an injective relation even though the definition of "is" in the previous paragraph defines "is" as an injective relation.

This demonstrates that the word "is" implies vagueness. However, all the verbs that means "to be," in addition to "is," also implies ambiguity. The word "to be" has derived from ontology, a theory of the ultimate categories of things. Since reason shows that "ultimate categories" do not exist, the use of the "to be" words imply an ultimate category of things.

Avoiding "to be" words (am, is, was, are, were, be, been, being) lessens the ontological concepts in writing, which would make sentences look more neutral. E-Prime uses this strategy. The use of E-Prime, though does not eliminate ontology in any way, lessens the use of it. Individuals still should reason non-ontologically and non-taxonomically to make objects neutral. More active voice sentences over passive voice sentences result from a side-effect of E-Prime, as explained above that active voice often makes writing more interesting.

Vagueness

Consider a statement used by Austrian economists:

While most people agree that computer science, physics and chemistry contains deductive truths, most people deny that economics contains deductive truths.

The use of the word "most" resembles a vague statement. The word "most" did not refer whether to most of individuals in the United States, the neoclassical economists, the majority of self-identified Austrian economists, or did it refer to the speaker. "Most" of the individuals in the United States, paradoxically, might believe that economics contains deductive truths because of their ignorance of the empirical methodology of mainstream economics. Thus the use of the word "most" interprets as highly vague and represents a subjective viewpoint, without any objective criteria of the usage (whether over most of the individuals in the United States or mainstream economist). The words "majority," "some," and "few" also interpret as vague words.

Furthermore, words that relate to size, time, speed, distance and other quantifiable concepts have differing interpretations. The use of "large" or "small" to denote an object implies a relative comparison to other objects within the specific category. A "large" dog means that it looks larger than the mediocre "dog." However, what if a person who, in his lifetime, looked at dogs that grew large? That person would classify the "large" dog as mediocre.

Numerical concepts often represent highly subjective, and even inaccurate interpretations. The mainstream media frequently referred that India's "economy" would become larger than the United States. What does "economy" mean? Does it refer to the nominal GDP or CPI-adjusted GDP, the total GDP or the per capita GDP, or does it refer to another measure of the "economy"? The Indian government, using extrapolation of empirical growth rates, deduced this numerical statistic that the "economy" would grow larger. The statistic did not realize that the relatively "high" growth rates would slow down after time due to lower economic freedom compared to Western nations.

The left-right political spectrum

See The Fallacy of the Political Spectrum

True definition

Common or generally accepted definitions do not exist. While the majority of the individuals in the United States believe that democracy synonymously equates with freedom, the Austrian economist would equate it with majority rule. Others, including the Bush administration, would equate it with "capitalism."

While the majority defines socialism in the Marxist definition as a transitional stage to "communism," bureaucrats would define it as a mixed economy. The majority in Europe may equate socialism as a "Third Way" of "Social Democracy," and the Austrian economist may refer socialism as synonymous to a planned system. Furthermore, others, including the "left-libertarians," and the Mutualist, refer socialism as any strategy achieving workers' equality.

Socialism, communism and progressivism, do not adhere to any generally accepted definition among all types of subjects. While progressivism originally meant as making progress, it became distorted by the popular individuals which means nothing than a synonym for "leftism" among the majority in the United States, while in India, it may mean some form of totalitarian and planned social system. Always use the true definitions, not the "popular" definitions that one subjectively accept. As these might mean vastly different in other states and ideologies, a centrally accepted definition does not exist.

Liberal and conservatism mean polar opposites as defined by the majority in the United States and mean synonyms as in Australia. The majority in the United States might see these terms reversed to mean opposites, such as in Europe. Even worse, the terms "left-liberalism" and "right-liberalism" do not have any well-defined general acception. Left-liberalism might mean an economically non-interventionist corporate capitalist society by a majority of European professors, due to different definitions of "liberalism" in Europe; while right-liberalism might mean some branch in the Democrat Party that endorses religious fundamentalist values, by a majority of Democrats who attended some college that defines right-liberalism that way.

Murray N. Rothbard's mistake in the use of left-liberalism in his manifesto For a New Liberty may have convinced a few for his apparent self-explanatory definition, while others, such as European readers, may mistakenly interpret this as some pure free-market system while advocating maximum personal freedom. He did not appear to research how his audience defines left-liberalism, which resulted in huge mistakes. No one knows what it means. It could mean anything. It can mean the positions advocated by the current United States Republican Party, since they have the same view on economic intervention as the positions of the Democrat Party except lesser "pork barrel spending."

Rothbard could have used interventionism in place of left-liberalism. He could have used statist in place. He could even have used conservatism, since its true definition meant status quo or status quo ante, which logically implicated its opposition to change, especially anarchist revolution.

One should the true definition, not some "popular accepted" one. As proved, a popular accepted one, no matter how popular, might mean the polar opposite in other countries or in differing occupations. As this would discussed later, individuals should avoid ideological words to avoid differing definitions.

Don't replace semantics with content

Well, what has the current "anarchist" debate fed up to? Anarchist within a wide range of economic positions, each and every day, clashing among each other with loud and roaring sounds IN ALL CAPS and in repetition, have become label warriors every day. Many Internet warriors, who on the forums, blogs, mailing lists and even on YouTube comment discussions, rant each other out on confusing and conflicting terms filled with "package deals" and negative connotations that rapidly incite heated attacks against each other, enough to make any reader offended without any reason, other than the simple explanation: caused by the communication incompatibilities and differing definitions that go unnoticed.

Don't ever go on these sites nor read anything, even in curiosity, unless one wants to have a mental conflict that forces one to reply against these apparent trolls. Never use any controversial terms like "capitalism," "anarcho-capitalism," and "objectivism," unless one wants to feed the collectivist "anarchist," and the Randroid trolls.

What causes the internal cause of these fights? Different definitions between the Randians and the non-Randians exemplifies the main cause of the objectivist-subjectivist conflicts. The clash of the word "Anarchism" of the Communist and the Free-Marketeers results in an ever-growing, ever-lasting debate among these, even in the original philosophers such as Murray Bookchin's essay: Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism - An Unbridgeable Chasm.

In his essay, filled with bizarre and obvious flawed assumptions, these flawed assumptions perform the major contributions!

He has renamed Individualist anarchism with Lifestyle anarchism for the very misunderstanding that Individualist anarchism does not even respect nor help the workers in any way--Bookchin perceived that the rich and the elite developed the "individualist anarchist" philosophy as a way to liberate from the traditional cultural restrictions on drugs and gambling, at an expense of the decrease in the living standards of the workers.

All the chapters in his book, filled with same-old arguments against the current state-capitalist order, have the same criticism sections in An Anarchist FAQ against anarcho-capitalism.

All the labels have become semantic, and the "anarcho"-communist who wrote the FAQ have become so informed that they do not even know the true concept of "individualist anarchism." If the philosophy "individualist anarchism" replaces its name to "free-market anarchism," the authors would quickly shun it. The self-identified "anarcho"-communist contain a diverse array of "anarcho"-communist philosophies, such as Mutualism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Collectivism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, etc., which internally differ much more greatly with each other than all the free-market anarchist philosophies combined!

Please ignore the Anarcho-Communist. Ignore them. Spend more time marketing Agorism instead of criticizing Anarcho-Communism, and then have everything done.

What do we do?

Instead of playing the "semantic game" with the statists who shun away whenever the word "anarchism" appears, focus on using more neutral words. As said, please avoid controversial words and words differing in definition, especially anarchism, capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, and even free market if possible; in order to convert the maximum number of statists directly to anarchist philosophy without all the mess trolling in forums and in blogs.

To further and maximize the effect of avoiding as many connotations as possible, please avoid the ideologies that ends with "-ism," and avoid words such as "property." Avoid arguing abolishing "minimum wage" laws, as readers would often get shocked of how it might mistakenly yield a return to the "Robber Barons." Avoid any arguments defending Wal-Mart or Standard Oil, which would quickly shun away many readers, and even avoid the word "property."

It works! For a few examples, see Mary Ruwart's Healing Our World, with a free online version.

In her book, all the political philosophies ending in "-ism" do not exist. The term "free-market" does not even exist. The book defines the word "property" only after it argued that non-aggression against the products of the labor would result in fortune. Because her book avoids the semantic game by avoiding potentially conflicting terms, all of her book focuses on pure logic instead of semantics.

By emphasizing only one term--"aggression"--she refutes all the statist proponents without any other words.

However, mistakes encountered during reading includes the refutation of minimum wage placed too early in her book, which might drive away potential converters. Her defense of statist corporate firms such as Standard Oil would almost shun away anyone who opposes the current gas company profits.

Bad marketing practices for promoting Agorism include the promotion on web forums, blog comments, mailing lists and YouTube comments. Agorists consider that the vast quantity of Ron Paul spammers on YouTube damaged "libertarianism," though Ron Paul behaves like a fascist.

Good marketing strategies in promoting Agorism, if one exist, include marketing ideas and books as wide of an audience as possible. Marketers should use copywriting techniques to increase converters of Agorism. The main role of promoting the free market comprises of marketing strategies to spread it. Agorist should engage in marketing the free market.

Semantic links

For links, see:

• The Voluntaryist Jargon Handbook
• Linguistic arrogance
• Words to avoid