-13 votes

Do the poor and mentally ill have any rights in an anarcho cap society?

We know that they will ideally have contract rights and property rights (that they can't afford to enforce) somehow, but...

Specifically, do they have the rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights?

The right to due process of law.
The right to legal counsel even if they cannot afford it.
The right to be held innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The right to jury trials.
The right to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, even when accused of a crime unless there is probable cause?
The right to confront their accusers.
The right against self incrimination.
The right to not be cruelly and unusually punished.

What method is there for absolutely securing these rights procedurally where these people cannot afford to subscribe to agencies of law/defense etc? How can we make sure these rights are absolute and not conditional on the magnanimity of profit-driven entities with a disincentive to encourage free riding?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You keep asking backwards

You keep asking backwards questions. It's not that they will be "better protected." It's that they will be less violated. Or do you really want to keep arguing that free people won't do a better job of taking care of each other than an entity with a monopoly on force?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

you're ipse Dixit's are truly

you're ipse Dixit's are truly uninspired and generic my man

Ventura 2012

I'm giving you the most basic

I'm giving you the most basic arguments for which you have no answer or simply want to avoid dealing with. You obviously have no interest in actually attacking and examining your own position, you simply want to protect it.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

It's ironic hearing these

It's ironic hearing these anti-anarchists talking about how they are so concerned with protecting rights and they still haven't figure out what entity is the greatest rights violator of all. How can they not have this figured out, especially when some of them claim they have been "debating it for years." What? You just aren't paying attention.

They don't even realize all their arguments are the same tired argument every liberal makes for government hence minarchism is just another degree of statism and not true libertarianism.

What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist?

6 months if their IQ is above 100.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Anarchism is utopian

Communism will work because everybody will be attuned to the grand problem of balancing their needs and the needs of their fellow workers. Inequality wont be a problem because it will be an enlightened society that enjoys maintaining equality. People will be free to do as they please. After all why would a people trained to enjoy equality turn back to a hoarding mentality? They wouldnt; arguing that clearly contradicts the whole premises.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Not utopian as most

Not utopian as most anarchists realize and admit that there will be injustices in an "anarchistic" society. We just acknowledge that those injustices will be fewer and further between than the injustices that happen at the hand of goons empowered by the false idea that some magic "government" gives them powers over their fellow man...

Beware the cult of "government"...

You would be free to start a charity

to provide legal counsel to the poor. You would not be free to take other people's money against their will to pay for legal counsel for the poor. How is this any different from welfare? I fail to see the difference.

So a NO on that one, but a YES to all the other questions, would be my guess.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

You can't confuse these

You can't confuse these people with that basic contradiction in their logic. They love force and violence to enact their wonderful ideas, just like every statist does. And like every statist their hubris lies in the belief that they have found the "right level" of what that force and violence should be. It would be funny if it wasn't just so sad.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

On your view

the mentally inept would become wards / slaves of wealthy patrons or owners in the absence of charity, which cannot be assumed ore relied upon as always present.

They would have no public body interested in their welfare, in the sense of their basic rights, such as freedom from slavery, not in the sense of a stipend.

Without property, they'd exist either in "the waste" of lawlessness, probably the objects of fun for criminals, or else they'd have a relationship of dependency that precluded the right to public legal representation for rights violations.

I'm not arguing this is good or bad, but it is the fact on ancap. Do with it as you will.

You may object that charities might prevent this, but that's besides the point. They also might not.

The question is whether, IF THEY DID NOT, it would be justified to come to their aid by demanding a publicly provisioned legal/defensive apparatus to establish and enforce their right to be free from slavery and free from other rights absuses.

ancaps say No.

But ancaps are mired in self contradiction, because they demand that society come to their aid in repulsing aggression. So they also wish to depend on the socialism of collective force. Just not for the stupid or the poor.

It's one of the dumbest, least appealing philosophies in history, and is a danger to no one since it has no adherents.

If people care about the mentally ill and want to

support politicians that pass laws to help the mentally ill in today's society, why do you assume that these people would suddenly disappear in an anarchist society? Do you support welfare or do you think the poor could be taken care of through charity? Because I don't see how this is different from the mentally disabled. Or are you ready to come out as a progressive?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

A progressive can't hide his

A progressive can't hide his spots for too long.

Like I have pointed out to Bill3 and now Brawler is the fact their arguments are identical to the arguments of liberal progressives hence they are statists and in no way libertarians. Hopefully if enough people hold this mirror up to them they'll eventually see their true reflections and not the distorted ones they have invented for themselves.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I became a libertarian through the LP

I always thought anarchist libertarian positions were way off. But I respect the minarchism of the LP. How can you argue against communism? Both communism and ancap libertarians end up with the same claim: anarchy with no government and people free to do what ever they like. The reality is that human beings live in societies and there will always be crimes, liars, crooks, honest disputes. Ancap doesnt have a system that can deal with honest disputes or with liars, since they are nearly impossible to tell apart. Example: 2 people sign a contract to deliver goods at or before the 30th of each month. A day late delivery causes disaster, how much of the damages is the second party liable for? Thats a real law question. How are you going to make the second party agree to inherit a huge loss for a day late delivery? Only way is with a gun. In ancap the victim is a bankrupt and cant afford enforcement. Plus even if he could the the other guy is going to resist enforcement.. so the suddenly the judiciary becomes a government.

It seems to me that your argument boils down to:

Some people will not be able to afford legal and defense services, so we must socialize these services. Why wouldn't this argument also apply to people that can't afford food? Do you also support welfare?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

No

I suppose Im happy as long as theres a court and police and some substantial form of legislative participation. If an anarchy has all that then I dont really have a good reason for prefering government to anarchy.

We have.a constitional

We have.a constitional framework that installed these protections into the criminal system. It barely touches on the civil.system, where the poor receive hardly any due process at all and the rich reign. So no, the people really don't care for the most part, but for the Constitutional and Supreme Court mandates.

Ventura 2012

Its not about what

either of us thinks 'would happen,' its about whats right in various possible scenarios. I contend that in a scenario in which no charity wanted to help the inept to have rights, it would be just to demand their rights be respected nonetheless and that anyone living under the protection of the rights-enforcement zone/apparatus also contribute to the general funding of rights enforcement.

The opposing view is that this would be unjust, and that if people chose to leave the mentally inept outside the walls to be the objects of fun for criminals, that it would be wrong to remedy this situation with force of law over the territory where it was occurring.

So let's look at

So let's look at what we know happens; government, in the name of helping people like me (dirt poor), constantly makes life harder:

You are not allowed to give hungry people food, it might not be nutritious enough--it is better to starve.
You are not allowed to live in an inexpensive shelter, it might not meet arbitrary 'codes'--it is better to be homeless.
You are not allowed access to inexpensive medications, you might not see a doctor enough--it is better to be sick.
You are not allowed to work for less than an arbitrary wage, it might not be some person's idea of 'enough'--it is better to be unemployed.

And so forth and so on. It is the government that holds the poor, disabled and ill down and prevents them from receiving help, far more than anything else. And when a 'real criminal' does strike, it is the government that prevents self-defense and it is the government that will slap them on the wrist and let them walk away.

Maybe everything wouldn't be butterflies and unicorn farts without government, but at least access to help, opportunities and justice wouldn't be universally blocked across the whole country.

I can say with 100 percent confidence that without government my quality of life would skyrocket. And that is without violating anyone else's rights.

This unfortunately

has nothing to do with the points under discussion.

Again, explain to me how this is different from welfare

Is it just to let poor people starve? If poor people were starving and no charity wanted to feed the poor, would you want to remedy the situation with force of law? Or would you step up and start a charity? That is the question you need to answer.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

One person

might believe a public dole for the starving is just, another might believe that public provision of rights enforcement is just. Neither is required necessarily to agree with the other, so your argument that rights-enforcement welfare compels a person to support a dole, or even collective property ownership, is simply not true.

All systems of justice, beyond might is right and the devil take the hindmost, require third parties to come in and use their collective force to impose rules. In order to do this, they must commit aggression. I have proven this on my other posts, and even your best, kyle townsend, blows in the breeze. You will never have another kyle townsend or his like, and he was cake.

Therefore, unless you're advocating the law of the jungle, you have to support some socialized action: 1) a group consensus of some kind determining guilt on the basis of testimony 2) the arresting agent committing aggression against the accused even though they aren't acting in any self defense.

Both serve sufficiently to establish the validity of the principles of group consensus and the group right to commit or delegate aggression on grounds which it sees fit.

again, to deny any of these, you are left only with shunning and individual and pack self defense of the animal kind.

Gee, why am I not surprised

that you didn't answer the question? And why do you keep bringing up this Kyle dude in multiple threads? I don't even know who that is.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I did answer

The difference is that socialism is an economic theory about state or collective ownership capital goods. Welfare state is something different altogether, considering the entitlement to be a right to the recipient. A minimal public dole, on the other hand, is also different; it doesn't claim it to be the right of the recipient, but just a policy chosen by the public via the law, and assumes only that public law is legitimate and taxes. Even further away is a minarchist state with a free provision of basic justice services and no dole.

They aren't the same simply because they're not the same.

What you're really objecting to is taxes, and because of NAP.

But as I've demonstrated elsewhere, every system violates NAP, even privately hired security agencies, since they arrest people to impose rules, and stand in judgment of accused persons presumed innocent, using aggression on the basis of group consensus.

So your basis for objecting to taxes, NAP, has been kicked out from under the table long ago by me, since you already support its violation in order for security agencies to be able to operate on the anarchist model. So you have no basis at present for claiming public justice is illegitimate.

Ir uses force, yes, but so do all anarchist alternatives, and both use aggression against the presumed innocent.

kyle townsend is the only intellectually rigorous anarchist I've encountered, who is honest and not emotionally invested in winning the argument. he will probably concede the match to me or resign.

Good luck, been trying to get

Good luck, been trying to get that answer from him for a while now but he knows if he answers it honestly he either outs himself as a progressive/statist or has to admit his position is wrong. Watching him dance is more fun anyway.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Please link to your question

if you had one. Otherwise, don't make false claims for rhetorical points. No one is paying attention to you anymore, if they ever were.

You're just like every

You're just like every liberal screaming "but what about the children, THE CHILDREN!"

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

It's an interesting paradox,

It's an interesting paradox, isn't it? I'm not sure exactly where the limiting principle is between right to healthcare and foodstamps and right to counsel. I draw the line at the point where due process is a necessary pre-condition to peaceful enforcement of ANY rights, whereas health care is not a necessary precondition except in the basest and least nuanced sense.

Anyway, it's entirely possible that lawyers would help the poor pro-Bono to a greater extent than they do now if they werected less tax-burdened. But it is as unthinkable that police/court/defense agencies would protect the indigent for free as it is that Verizon will give everyone free phones and service. Its telling that most anarchists I've read admit that there would be no free riding allowed, including law professor David Friedman as quoted below.

Ventura 2012

question

How can we make sure these rights are absolute and not conditional on the magnanimity of profit-driven entities?

How can we make sure, in a non-anarcho-capitalist society, or in a minarchist society, that these rights are absolute and not conditional on the magnanimity of power-driven entities?

A legal guaruntee, a moral

A legal guaruntee, a moral people, and Rothbard's libertarian constitution enforced by accountable and impartial courts. In other words, a minarchy. But you knew that, so can you answer MY question? Specifically, we know that anarchism requires the moral people (anarchists, anyway), but how do you guaruntee these rights to all?

Ventura 2012

You have all those

You have all those constitutional guarantees right now. How's that working out for you? LOL

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

If we do then why are we here

If we do then why are we here on a Ron Paul site dedicated to restoring them?

Ventura 2012