[Projoy] Singer is advocating relativism about property. Property is whatever local custom and law says it is. If local custom and law says the government owns your whole salary, why, that's just how it is. They can own your firstborn, or you yourself. That's the social contract you somehow accepted when you got born, and any silly idea you have about owning things that the government says you can't is just an illusion. The government owns everything it provides, and it owns everything it needs to take from you to provide it. Lest you think I'm exaggerating, I have actually heard someone argue (before the Wall came down) that East Germany was perfectly justified in shooting people attempting to escape, because such people were stealing the upbringing and education that the state had given them, and which therefore gave the state a property interest in their person. Singer even comes straight out and says "A system of government is conceptually prior to property rights." Who's ignoring human nature now? I mean, most larger animals behave like they have some sort of idea of "my stuff", never mind human beings, and they don't have governments to enforce the idea, they do it themselves. In just about any political philosophy but Singer's, governments are instituted to secure pre-existing property rights.
       A key concept in discussions of libertarianism is, "Utopia is not an option", so when Belle Waring brings in "libertarian utopia" I pretty much lose interest, even though she's recounting a discussion involving David Friedman. The wishful thinking can be found just as much on the other sides. Look here to see what you can do to Make Poverty History: email the PM, send postcards, sign a petition (of breathtaking fatuity), wear a white ribbon, and "call for change and make it happen"! Let's wish for government to give everyone a pony! At least Singer gives 20% of his income to charity.
       [CdM again, re Brad deLong] Go back to those earlier writers and ask them to imagine a world without servants. Go back earlier and ask people to imagine a world without slaves, or (say, in mediaeval Europe) a world without Christianity. You would get the same incredulity as you do at present asking most people to imagine a world without government.
       [Bm] I see it as a political stance grounded in the moral philosophy that everyone has a duty to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, and to make the very best of what they're given by fate, nobody else owing them anything but what they freely choose to give. That is not by any means the whole of morality -- it is largely disjoint from the Tao admirably expounded by C.S. Lewis in the book I mentioned -- but I regard it as an essential part of the whole.

[Raak] Interesting. When Singer says "a system of government is conceptually prior to property rights" (rather than, say, chronologically prior) surely he doesn't mean that before we had governments we had no property. What he means is that when two people, or indeed other animals come into conflict over property, there immediately emerges some means of deciding priority: strength, guile etc. Out of the two organisms you have a system of government (note that Singer does not say government itself). When 'strength of numbers' becomes the deciding factor in terms of who gets the resources you have something even more recognisable as a system of government. These arrangements are transitory, unstable, inefficient. Surely what we see in our own far more effient and abstract systems of government is the ossification of many iterations of this sort of process? (i.e. Government is inevitable, discuss). Even a world without a nominal government, run, say, by communities of interest or corporations there would be a de facto pecking order, wouldn't there? Assuming this world had such things as property rights, the big corps would be a system of government.

[Raak] How do you react to the following? "Your property is what anybody stronger than you lets you own and that you don't surrender to anybody weaker than you, or vice versa."

[Projoy] Ha! By yielding I overcome! "Property" doesn't exist as a real thing in itself. Neither do "rights". "Property" and "rights" are ways in which people conceptualise how people should relate to each other. So, your hypothetical statement is an accurate description of who actually gets to own stuff, but not a description of most people's various ideas about what constitutes property and who should have it.

[Projoy, your previous message] I don't see two dogs fighting over a bone as a government, nor two tribes fighting over territory. If the word "government" is extended to mean "whatever way people arrange of living together" then even the hypothetical world of David Friedman's book has a government. But that empties the word of usefulness. Governments, that we call governments, have just this in common: that they impose by force a monopoly on the use of force to settle disputes.

I've just been investigating Time Capsules for a PR stunt proposal... and then looked at my horoscope which said: "Consider the long term today." (Cancer, Jonathan Cainer) Ha.

[pen] Do you take time capsules (3 times a day with meals) to give you more time to do things?

[Boolbar] Yup.

[pen] That must be me too then. I don't read horoscopes, so I have to take mine second-hand, obviously. Thanks.

I once owned a cook book by Jonathan Cainer. It consisted of recipes like, "Open can. Put beans on plate. Serve." and some strange gubbins about how vegetarianism was an affirmation of life. He's a man of many talents! If only he used some of them.

[Raak] You're dismissing Belle Waring's arguments because she uses "libertarian utopia" as a tongue-in-cheek description of the kind of society that Epstein, Barnett and Friedman are discussing. But leave that phrase aside if you like: I think her one paragraph synopses of their arguments is pretty close to the money.

As an economist, I am sympathetic to the view that we should encourage the value-creating possibilities of private contracting between individuals, and as a social liberal, I am sympathetic to the view that we should limit government intrusion into private decisions. Those are positions that loosely ally with libertarianism. But I am also aware that, in the real world, private transactions frequently have significant consequences beyond the transactors, and libertarian arguments start crumbling rapidly one you take this seriously. (Epstein recognizes this in his contribution, and so ends up advocating a form of state that is not really that different from what we already have; he would simply like to see less government regulation.) The key paragraph from Belle Waring's argument is surely this, though:

Now, everyone close your eyes and try to imagine a private, profit-making rights-enforcement organization which does not resemble the mafia, a street gang, those pesky fire-fighters/arsonists/looters who used to provide such "services" in old New York and Tokyo, medieval tax-farmers, or a Lendu militia. (In general, if thoughts of the Eastern Congo intrude, I suggest waving them away with the invisible hand and repeating "that's anarcho-capitalism" several times.) Nothing's happening but a buzzing noise, right?

I am completely with her here: it is at this point that I think libertarianism utterly loses touch with reality. Private contracting without some institution to enforce contracts is infeasible, and private provision of contract enforcement strikes me as much scarier than enforcement by a democratically elected government. (Perhaps that's what comes of visiting countries where ordinary restaurants are guarded by men with sub-machine guns.)

Oh, and you are completely misreading Brad DeLong. He is not saying that Smith, Hume, Hobbes, et al. couldn't imagine a world without government; he is saying the exact opposite. He is saying that they know it to be a crazy idea because they can imagine it all too well.