For the non-determinists!

For the market anarchists amongst us who do not believe in determinism, I ask you this simple question:

What is an incentive?

Think about it.

Why Market Anarchy is Most Conductive to Natural Rights, finis

In his conclusion, Nikhil simply rehashes the previous arguments he presented, which is to say:

1. That a market anarchy would inevitably collapse into a state.
2. That a market anarchy requires a perfect population to work.

I have soundly refuted both arguments in my previous post, and yet he's still presenting them as if they completely refute my position. He is just not listening.

To repeat again in condensed form:

1. A market anarchy cannot collapse into a state, because a state is a monopoly of force, and natural monopolies are impossible without state intervention. Nikhil has failed to explain how such a monopoly could arise, as well as why he thinks that people's self-interest would override the natural tendancy towards peace in a market anarchy (due to the fact that people must pay for their own wars, instead of imposing the costs on a captive population).

A state, of course, is already "collapsed", and therefore if Nikhil considers this collapsed state evil, he must call his own system evil as well.

2. Unlike statism, a market anarchy does not require a perfect population, or even good people. It merely requires the existence of market processes- which is pretty simple- and willingness to trade. Even if 99% of a population lived in a collectivist commune, this should not prevent the rests of us from asserting our legitimacy and assembling together in ways that are more conductive to natural rights.

Nikhil abhors this scenario because he wishes to impose his desired value system by the force of arms. Even if he is a minarchist, he is still a statist, and he is still a person who desires constant violence and social warfare. This lack of morality is what led me to leave the fantasy of minarchism and understand that market anarchy is the only moral system. It is based on the simple premise that everyone has different value systems, and that trying to impose a singular value system on everyone is immoral, lunatic, and not conductive to freedom in the long run.

Good luck Nikhil. I hope you rethink your moral orientation in the future, and look more closely at your own arguments, because all the arguments you use indict you.

Well, I can lead a horse to the water, but I can't make him think.

Why Anarchy is Most Conductive to Natural Rights part 3

Nikhil Rao has posted his second rebuttal today.

Once again I have no objection, and neither do I intend to object, to his scientific work. What I mainly object to, is his butchering of market anarchist theory. He especially fails to grasp that the simple problems he raises can easily be turned against his belief in the state with more effect. In my previous entry, I explained why consumer demand stands against the possibility of the disintegration of an anarchic system. He replies that not enough people value freedom to make this true:

But do people in general really believe that freedom is that important a value? The past 100 years would seem to indicate otherwise as we’ve seen the rise of the welfare state in every country around the world. I can count on my fingers the number of people I met during my year in London who actually held freedom in high regard.

Here once again he falls into another statist trap: this time, of associating the behaviour of human beings under a state, with that of human beings in general. Of course people cheer the rise of the welfare state. They assume that the state is a permanent fixture, and thus seek to utilize as much of its power as possible to perpetuate their values against those of other people. Social warfare, after all, is the state of any society in a democratic system. And people mistakenly assume that the welfare state is good for their own security. Given this, their behaviour is not surprising at all.

People do value comfort- the comfort to live as they desire, and not have to answer to anyone else. That is the main drive of social warfare in a democracy, and the main drive of peace in an anarchy. There is nothing comfortable in warfare of any kind, or at least, I would like to know one person who thinks war is a comfortable state. Surely not! So how can people in an anarchy value the kind of war that Nikhil is predicting?

The question becomes, rather, how Nikhil expects his ideal state to make self-interest concurrent with natural rights- a point which he has not addressed at all. Market anarchy has been proven to work, again and again. Statism has never worked, and cannot possibly work due to the incentive system inherent to a monopoly of power. How can people not desire to exploit a monopoly of power, is the impossible issue that Nikhil must address.

When I was a minarchist, I racked my brain for years trying to find an answer. I shouldn't have bothered, when the answer was already right in front of me. Perhaps Nikhil will come to that same conclusion one day.

Even more absurdly, he asks:

In fact, the history of middle ages Europe is a perfect example of the failure of the an-cap system. As more and more men chose safety and comfort over freedom, rulers’ power grew more and more in scope. Once upon a time ‘Kings’ were petty little things, ruling over small parcels of land of little consequence. But as time went on, kingdoms grew to the size of entire countries, and in time a Holy Roman Emperor would be crowned.

Is Nikhil seriously contending that Middle Ages Europe was a market anarchy? If so, I would like to see his proof.

We do know that some isolated regions of Europe were anarchies- such as Iceland and Ireland- and they were more peaceful and respectful of rights than their monarchic equivalents. I'm afraid that Nikhil's argument blows up in his face on this one.

Nikhil says that my statement that natural monopolies do not occur is too superficial, and that the basic power structure always remains. What basic power structure? The desire to dominate? Sure. The desire to dominate is always there. But unless it can be given expression, it must be sublimated. If Nikhil can show me how a monopoly can arise in a market anarchy, he can talk about the problems of monopolizing systems. Otherwise, he should return his objection against the monopoly that he himself proposes to establish by the force of arms- his ideal minarchy.

His final point:

So once again I argue that anarcho-capitalism is an invadable system. If every member of an an-cap society valued classical rights, then yes, such a system would work. Now show me such a population. And show me how they’d respond to the invasion by not only power-mongers, but those who value not liberty but comfort.

Is not much better. I never stated that anarchy requires for all its members to value natural rights to "work" (insofar as "working" in an anarchy means that everyone is free to live the way they want). An anarchy can exist where 99% of people do not desire to be free, and they are free to assemble themselves in hierarchies as much as they want- but as long as some people do desire to be free, those people will be able to assemble and live their freedom relatively fully.

Given this fact, there is no point in invoking hypothetical "invasions". There is no such thing as an "invasion", for there is nothing to "invade". There is no "country" or "state" to take over. Another group of people who want to assemble together in a hierarchy is merely that- another group of people who want to live their lives differently. Can Nikhil tell us what is being invaded?

Would a society where 99% of people reject rights be free? Not really. But a minarchy in that same society would make people even less free. So once again his point should be returned to himself.

I especially like how he ends by repeating an outright call to violence:

Beyond that, we must occasionally push for a direct curtailment of liberty in order to protect that which remains.

Nikhil keeps making veiled threats of coercion against anyone who disagrees with his ideal system. Unlike Nikhil, I have no wish to force those people to live the way I want. I am not a violent or utopian person. I simply wish for all to be free to live the way they want.

Apparently, this principle is very hard to understand.

Why Anarchy is Most Conductive to Natural Rights part 2

Nikhil Rao has posted his reply to my first entry. In it, he makes a lot of statements of this type:

But the problem with anarcho-capitalism is that somewhere on the road leading from theory to practice, we find ourselves amidst a truckload of half-penny nails.

I also think that such a system would last much longer than an an-cap system.

He makes these statements but provides very little argumentation or evidence to support them. Until he provides a support for his dismissal of market anarchy as impractical, when it is in fact eminently practical and requires merely people dealing with each other as social equals and not as pawns of the ruling class, I must dismiss his position as an emotional cop-out.

He did provide one cliché argument, which I will get to in a moment.

First, he did catch me on one little issue. I mentioned that in a market anarchy, codes would not be perfectly coincidental with natural rights, when I did in fact claim that I wanted a society without coercion at all. So he says:

So although he values a society without all the crimes he enumerated, he is unwilling to take the step to completely eliminate it.

And here he falls completely into the statist mindset. Yes, I do want to take the steps to eliminate it. But those steps do not include forcing others at gunpoint to agree with me! That would be the exact opposite of what I want, which is non-coercion. Nikhil Rao may think that his proposed system is enlightened and should be the ultimate goal of society, but he has no right whatsoever to impose it on others.

And that is the ultimate difference between him and me. He wants to impose a singular value system by force, and I don't- even if that value system happens to be superior in some respects.

Now to the argument he uses:

And an an-cap system (the basal system of all social animals) has no provisions to prevent the strong from turning it into a meritocracy, a plutocracy, a monarchy, or an oligarchy. Basically any kind of ‘archy’.

Ah, it's our old "market anarchy is inherently unstable" cliché. I never get tired of seeing that one.

Actually, there is only one process regulating a market anarchy, and it is that process that "prevents the strong from turning it into" anything: it's called consumer demand. I want to be free and I will not support anyone who tries to enslave me. If that means that I have to stop getting my services from the company with the best offer, then so be it- my freedom is more important than short-term financial gain. And anyone who did try to use violence to take over society would be met by retaliatory force, financed by all the people who agree with me that freedom is an important value (which are the vast majority).

The most eloquent proof of this, is that natural monopolies are virtually impossible, except when the state imposes one on society, or provides one itself.

As for his ideal system?

We formally and consciously agree to draw a line in the sand and not violate others’ negative rights, rather than merely letting market forces get us merely close to that point.

As he has rejected the market option, he obviously understands that some people are going to disagree with him. And if this is the case, one is led to the inevitable consequence that Nikhil supports some use of force to arrive to that goal. In short, he promotes coercion in order to promote the non-violation of individual rights. This is, I hope I don't have to point out, highly contradictory.

By the way, Nikhil? They tried your idea before. It was called the United States of America.

It didn't work.

Your turn. ;)

It's about your freedom, stupid

Socialists and Communists adopt their anti-scientific belief system because they hate your freedom.

I know what you're thinking. "Franc, that's facking stupid", you're thinking. "No one hates anyone's freedom. That's just political propaganda." But I can prove this to you in one simple hypothetical.

Suppose that in Ancapistan (the name always given to a hypothetical market anarchic territory), most of the population voluntarily gives half of their income to a big organization of bureaucrats, who then redistributes that money according to whatever criteria the socialist desires. Furthermore, people only trade with others who follow a certain code of morality that the socialist agrees upon. In short, an ideal situation - a whole society that behaves, purely voluntarily, like he desires.

I guarantee you that if you ask socialists and communists what they would think about such a scenario, 99% of them will answer that they don't like it. Why? Because voluntary action is not an expression of "the will of the people", it's vile, disgusting "capitalism" - even if it goes exactly as they desire.

They have no desire to "help the poor" or "support the workers". As I pointed out in my previous entry, it is ridiculous to think that a group of thugs who threaten you with guns want to help you or support you. What they want is power over others, the power to enforce their ruling class values over you. They hate your freedom.

Incidentally, this proves that there is no such thing as communist anarchy or socialist anarchy. They require a monopoly of force, a state, to exist. As long as there is freedom to choose, you have markets, profits, choice, which are the antithesis of their belief.

If you look at the media, you see a lot of hatred for freedom. Specific kinds of freedom, sure, but freedom nevertheless. People don't want you to be able to choose for yourself, because they believe that you are evil and will only hurt their own interests. And they disguise it as concern for our "common interests", the "common good", the "common safety" and the "good of the country". No such bugaboo exists. But the effect of believing in those bugaboos - state slavery - is very real.

Although it is very widespread, it is ridiculously easy to refute the argument that we need a state because people are evil. If people are evil, then the people who compose the state are also evil. Giving these evil people control over all the guns is an extremely stupid idea, bound to disaster. A democratic system only makes the situation worse, since it inherently selects the most manipulative, duplicitous and lying people for powerful positions. And insofar as we know, there is no method by which the most meritorious people could ever be selected, even if we wanted this to happen. Only competition attracts merit, not monopolies.

People who believe in the tyranny of economic necessity see society as a game where there must be winners (the ruling class) and losers (the rest of us), because people are corrupt and must be forced to follow their belief system. The moral superiority of market anarchy lies in the fact that it is the only mode of social organization which fully supports the individual's freedom to fulfill his values in any way he chooses, while dealing with other people as equals. No ruling class, no imposition of force, no monopoly of law.

In the end, the issue is simple : who gets to choose how you live your life? A king (monarchy), a tyrant (dictatorship), a group of tyrants (Communism), state bureaucrats (police state, Greenie state), CEOs (State Capitalism), union leaders (syndicalism)?

Or YOU?

How to Save the Planet / Punish Them All

I always enjoy a good laugh at the expense of the Greenie fanatics. In this spirit, "iowahawk" gives us the "ten things you can do to save the planet".

3. Crush a Third World economic development movement. One of the most pressing threats facing our environment is rising incomes in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Only a generation ago, these proud dark people were happily frolicking in the rain forest, foraging for organic foods amid the wonders of nature. Now, corrupted by wealth, they are demanding environmentally hazardous consumer goods like cars and air conditioning and malaria medicine. You can do your part to stop this dangerous consumer trend by supporting environmentally aware leaders like Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro to foster an economy of sustainable low-impact ecolabor camps.

Harry Goslin tells us to "Punish All the Damn Murderers from Top to Bottom":

All the head-shaking by criminal, rubber-stamping scumbags in Congress, trips and lectures by the Marine Corps commandant, and feigned remorse by the Idiot-in-Chief, should not be allowed to confuse the issue of ultimate responsibility for the massacre in Haditha. If those Marines are to be strung up for what they did in the execution of their orders while “serving” their country during war, then all those who had a hand in sending them to a U. S. government-created shithole and placing them in a position to make a life-changing decision for themselves and dozens of innocent people, should be strung up as well.

Why Anarchy is Most Conductive to Natural Rights part 1

On the issue of natural rights, I am not in good company. Most anarchists take quite a pragmatic stance, and deny that rights exist, or claim that rights contradict the absolute freedom of anarchy, or require a state in order to be effected (which is patent nonsense said by people who should know better). And minarchists claim that we need a state in order to protect such rights.

The latter position is taken by Nikhil Rao, of the Liberty Papers blog, in "Why Any Rights At All?". This entry was presented at the last Carnival of Liberty and was supposed to knock down market anarchy. The objectives of his entry are three-fold: first, to explain what negative rights are, second, to shed some light on self-order in other species, and third, to discuss the issue of human social organization and why anarchy is insufficient. I wouldn’t dare to touch him in ecology or biology, and since his discussion on the topic promotes self-order, I thankfully don’t have to object to it either. As a libertarian, I also do not object to his analysis of rights. I do, however, have some important points to raise about how he interprets anarchy.

For those of you who don't know me, I am coming from a market anarchist position, but I consider the term a tautology only needed because sadly most anarchists are quite contradictory in their positions. Anarchy implies a return to the natural state of man, which is, as history I think has well demonstrated, that of producer and trader, not of oppressor. I’m fairly certain Nikhil agrees with me that oppression necessarily involves inequality, in light of his entry. So this will be the basis for our discussion.

First, let me give the positive case by explaining why anarchy is the mode of social organization most conductive to the sustainment of natural rights. First of all, I must preface by saying that I see natural rights as a purely theoretical concept- everyone tries to fulfill his values, not a concept of rights. Nevertheless, rights give us a guideline by which we can evaluate how progressive a society is.

The most important difference between statism and market anarchy is this: in statism, a singular value system is imposed on the entirety of a society, but in a market anarchy, people are free to choose the value system they live under. What does the latter imply in terms of rights?

Suppose you are a customer under a market anarchic system. You don't want to be subject to any rules, so you decide to first purchase a service from an agency which offers a completely permissive code- murder is permitted, theft is permitted, fraud is permitted, no action is ever stopped by this agency, and all is left to the individual to cope with. People could still live, work and trade, but they would have considerable overhead in protecting themselves (as they have refused the possibility of an agency doing that for them). You don't want to have to do all this hard work!

But why do you perform this work, instead of letting everything stand as it is? Because of your value system. You value your life, your property and your ability to have relationships, hobbies, and all that sort of thing. You do not value getting assassinated, robbed, kidnapped. This is perfectly natural, and most people, uninfluenced by statism (which states that the individual must submit to threats of attacks against his person for the "common good"), would agree.

So our value system is a natural counter-balance to the desire to not be subject to rules. There is a point of equilibrium which should be attained by this process. Where is it? Well, it is definitely lower than the exploitation of statism, and definitely higher than a total lack of organized order (which I think is what Nikhil thinks of when he says "anarchy"). Does it fit perfectly in the peg hole of natural rights? I doubt it, but I assume it must be pretty close. The fact that systems of laws which arise from non-coercive, private systems of justice- such as Roman law and English common law- tend towards natural rights much more than our current laws should be encouraging, although they reflect the statist concepts existing at the time (immigration, the privileges of kings, and so on).

On the other hand, what does statism offer us? Democratic states only grow- for that is what their incentive system dictates. A democratic state is ensured to deviate farther and farther from natural rights. Monarchies grow at a much slower pace, because of the private ownership of government inherent in the monarchic system, and the subsequent desire in the king to keep his rule from interfering in his citizens' lives, in order to maximize his profit. Nevertheless, monarchies also offer us no tendancy towards natural rights.

Nikhil is a minarchist, and so would probably like me to believe that some form of minarchy can exhibit such a tendancy (not the US Constitution, I hope). I will let him express his position on that issue, but he would have to make his proposed concrete mode of organization clear so that we can examine its incentive system. I can guarantee you that it's not going to work in the long run, simply because all states expand in the long run. This is the simple inevitable consequence of monopolizing force.

Nikhil believes that "the market has limitations". What limitations would that be? So-called "market failures"? Even if I forget about my market anarchist position for a second, I still can't see how the market has limitations that the state can overcome. The state is merely an agency of redistribution of resources by force. In and of itself, it does no productive work. If something is possible under statism, then it is automatically possible under a market, through consumer demand. It may be less probable, sure- for example, I doubt very much that free individuals would surrender 50% of their wages to a vast bureaucratic monster, but that's a good thing- but it is still possible.

My general evaluation of his entry is that Nikhil apparently sees anarchy as nihilistic in nature. On the contrary, I would argue that the concept of an anarchic society is impregnated with value and meaning. This kind of discussion is rather similar to that of a religious believer arguing that the atheist can derive no value or meaning from life- while it seems to me that the truth is rather inverted here. Once the mind is freed from the bridle of sterile religious thought, it is then that value and meaning can really flourish. Statism is equally sterile in moral terms, as it is fundamentally an ideology geared towards a singular goal, the enforcement of the ruling class value system, and its means merely “might makes right” dressed up in a pretty costume.

To illustrate this point, he says:

Although the incidences of all of these would decrease relative to other animals in a human anarchistic society due to an increased fear (and cost) of retaliation, they would still exist. So what the anarchist asserts is that a basal level of murder, coercion, and theft is somehow ok. The depredations against others in an anarchy represent the background noise that proponents clearly ignore as mere stochastic effect.

This is, once again, to say that people do not have values, and that they need values to be enforced by the state. Yet this is contradictory in three different ways. First, if people do not have values, then how can the ruling class have values to enforce? Second, why would the ruling class care at all to enforce values which would suit its population? And third, even if it wanted to, how could it?

To address the point, it is simply not true that "the anarchist asserts (...) that a basal level of murder, coercion, and theft is somehow ok". I have met no real anarchist (by which I understand someone who actually wishes to eliminate all states, not simply replace them with syndicalist mini-states or communist utopias) who asserts such a thing, explicitly or implicitly. Let me state this clearly: a basal level of murder, coercion and theft is not okay. It is more conductive to my values to live in a society without any murder, coercion and theft, than it is to live in a society with any level of murder, coercion and theft. So I desire to live in such a society. This has nothing to do with rights per se, but rather with morality, two topics which are distinct but related.

I like the analogy of roads in this case. He thinks we have only two alternatives: a road system without any lights or signs (crime is permitted), or a road system where lights and signs are placed by divine fiat (state "protection"). Market anarchy says lights and signs are a private matter, and should be determined and coordinated by road owners, acting under consumer demand (market protection).

This single mistake nullifies any point Nikhil may have desired to make about anarchy and its relation to rights. An anarchy tends towards rights better than statist systems, not because the system is engineered to do so a priori, by divine fiat, but because humans are engineered to seek their self-interest. And we are self-interested in living in a prosperous and coercion-free society, giving us the incentive necessary to seek out what we see as an optimal balance between freedom and security, so to speak.

Nikhil then veers towards equality as a crucial concept:

But more importantly, the anarchist imputes too much to statement that ‘All men are created equal.’ (...) Should one strip away all of the material (environmental) differences, the genetic differences would still leave vasts gulfs between the most capable and the least. The anarchist’s basic argument of self order is dependent upon not only a level playing field but teams consisting of cloned players. (...) In such a system, where some are capable of greater acts of coercion than others, and where the threat of retaliation varies widely from almost none to almost infinite, a few will inevitably come to control the many.

(...)

The anarchist turns a blind eye to the difference between the perfect world of their assumptions and the real world. The classical liberal merely acknowledges them. He sees that for society to remain free from tyranny, individuals must treat each other as if they were equal.

He's got it all wrong- it is the statists who believe that all men are the same. How else could it possibly be reasonable to enforce a singular value system on an entire population? Statism is inherently utopian (i.e. a system that goes against human nature) because everyone necessarily has a different value system, just as everyone has different natural hair colour, height or intelligence (although of course the value system is open to a lot more volitional decisions than any of those properties). As an anarchist, I would be foolish to turn a blind eye to that fact- it is one of my main arguments!

We must treat each other as if we were equals, because that is the only way to neutralize the potentially oppressive effects of natural and social inequality. Very good! But statism, which creates a ruling class with considerably more power than the rest of society, cannot possibly be the implementation of this principle, even in a minarchic way. Only some form of anarchy can implement it.

I realize that this entry is running quite long, especially as I usually keep things short on this blog, so I'm going to stop here for now and let Nikhil give his side of the story. Of course he is free to answer in any way he wants, but I would like him to give us his ideal minarchic system, its incentives, and how it tends towards natural rights, so we can examine it and check his claims.

Check my other entries in this debate:
Why Anarchy is Most Conductive to Natural Rights part 2
Why Anarchy is Most Conductive to Natural Rights part 3
Why Market Anarchy is Most Conductive to Natural Rights, finis

Questions from a libertarian war cheerleader

From the wonderful site Burden of Proof, I got a link to a pro-war advocate asking ten questions to libertarians who oppose the war. Here are my answers. And before I start, I must preface, for those who come directly to this entry, that I am a market anarchist, or more generally, an anarchist of the libertarian kind.

1) When, if ever, is preemptive war (...) justified?

Never. War is organized murder, and therefore there cannot be such a thing as a "just war". The only reason we use the singular term "war", which legitimizes it in the eyes of the population, is because it is violence waged by a state (or against a state) instead of private individuals. In a neutral context we would call it a "gang war" or "organized murder".

Now, just to be clear, I am not completely against the idea that a group of individuals freely decide to foot the bill for an offensive action- because they are threatened by a group of individuals from a different piece of land, say, because of terrorism- and embark in such a campaign. I don't think it can be justified, but I don't want to remove people's freedom to embark in statist stupidities if they so desire, as long as they don't involve me. But there can be no allowance whatsoever for states doing the same thing.

2) When, if ever, is the United States justified in removing a foreign dictator from power?

First of all, the "United States" cannot act or be justified in anything, as it is an arbitrarily delimited piece of land. So the strictest answer to this is that the question is meaningless. But from now on I will assume that by "United States" he means "the people who compose the ruling class of the state that monopolizes the arbitrary territory called United States".

In that case, the answer is "never". The state is never justified in using people's stolen resources in order to interfere in the affairs of other states. All that states do is reinforce the status of their fellow states. And besides, we can already see how well this "helping other countries" justification works with the United States state- everything they touch turns to shit.

3) Do you agree with the position—recently quoted approvingly on this blog by Dr. Kuznicki—that Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat, but a hobgoblin used by the Bush Administration to increase its authority?

Islamic terrorism is a serious threat, but it's no threat compared to the power of my own government. And much of Islamic terrorism is due to American Imperialism. Of course it is used by the Bush Administration as a hobgoblin... what hyped-up threat have you ever heard from a politican that wasn't a hobgoblin to grab more power?

4) Precisely what (if anything) do you propose the United States do about the Iranian nuclear weapons program?

Strongly encourage it. Nuclear proliferation is the best antidote for war, and (with one small exception) no war has ever taken place involving two nuclear powers. Politicians are too scared to risk their own lives for a cause they don't really believe in ("liberating" other countries).

5) Do you believe that the United States should defend Israel, either militarily, by the sale of arms, or in other ways (please specify)?

No. I don't believe that any state should help defend any other. But that is what they do- for their legitimacy depends on it.

6) Can you name a specific case in which an American dissenter, not actually affiliated with a terrorist organization, has been jailed or otherwise deprived of civil rights under the PATRIOT Act?

Faruk Abdel-Muhti (Palestinian peace activist) and Ani Sonam (Tibetan nun) are two.

7) Do you believe that we ought to remove American troops from Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences to Iraqis?

Yes, yes, yes. Never ask for more state intervention to solve a problem that it created in the first place. That is the very definition of insanity. The use of military force will never help anyone, not Iraqis, not Americans. Only freedom can help a society repair and grow, and it doesn't look like the Iraqis are gonna get that any time soon either way.

8) With regard to interrogation or incarceration: do you believe that infringements of religious sensitivities (e.g., mistreating the Koran) or personal sensibilities (e.g., making men wear women’s underwear on their heads) ought to be regarded as comparable with physical torture?

I do not believe that the state should engage in interrogation or incarceration, so I suppose the question does not in fact apply to my position. But if I had to answer hypothetically, my answer would be "yes", to the extent that religious believers are as much set in their aberrant beliefs as our pain receptors are about transmitting pain.

9) What, if any, legal consequences do you believe flow from a declaration of war?

Whoever issues such a declaration, and actually possesses the power to implement it, should be considered legally fair game for murder. They have issued a credible threat against people's lives, and are a clear danger to the rights of their entire population. As individuals who desire to live in peace, we should not allow such threats to remain unpunished in any sane society based on trust.

I certainly wouldn't be the one who would try to kill him, but I wouldn't demand any penalty against anyone who did.

10) Do you believe that the Bush Administration purposely manipulated intelligence information in order to persuade the Congress to authorize military intervention in Iraq?

If it was a manipulation, it was very flimzy.