So how exactly would you ensure that these private military corporations and volunteer groups wouldn't wage warfare over more territory? or become states themselves? What is preventing people from Civil War without a State such as ours?
In the Anarchic society of Tribal England, civil conflict was the norm among the Celts, Jutes, and other tribes. In a world of Private Property rights, why wouldn't land owners engage in conflict to obtain more land?
z1235:The state (with its uniform legal system and enforcement) can protect my freedom and property from attacks launched by any other agent from within and from outside the country.
But it doesn't. Iraq didn't protect its citizens from America. Britain did not protect the freedom of Britons against German bombers in WWII. Certainly the US government did not prevent 9/11. So the protection claim is disproven.
z1235: In anarchy, anyone with more power than myself can come and take everything I own, including my freedom (slavery) and I would have no recourse whatsoever.
The Jews had no recourse against the Nazis. The people at Waco had no recourse against the US government. Chinese citizens have no recourse against their government. Your government can conscript you (force you to kill or be killed). Your government can take 100% of your income. Under eminent domain, your government can take your land. So we have just disproved another myth about government over anarchy.
z1235:Additionally, this visibility and predictability allows for much more efficient allocation of productive resources.
But that is also a myth. There is no less transparent agency than government. The government knows more about you, than you know about it. You have to file freedom of information act requests to get information, and maybe they will grant it to you, and maybe the requisite department will comply. Maybe. The fact the US government ginned up the Vietnam war was a secret for 30 years, and only accidentally got released. How do you really know what your government does in your name? How do you really know how much they watch you? You don't. Heck, you probably can't tell me within any degree of certainty what laws will be passed in two years, or what the real deficit will be this year. You don't know what Obama will do one month from now. Do you know if the US will attack Iran or not? Sheesh.
z1235:Your model of human behavior assumes that an individual's self-interest is inherently non-violent and cooperative.
Not necessarily. My model of behaviour sees that it is in the self interest of people to cooperate and to deal with each other morally because that is behaviour that is incentivized under a free market.
z1235:My model assumes that self-interest by no means excludes violence, in fact, history has proven that it is its major component.
For every episode of violence, there are easily as many periods of peace. Your claims about violence continue to be arbitrary, unproven and I believe untrue.
z1235:If my model is correct, minarchy maximizes individual freedom.
No, because you haven't proven that minarchy provides anything that anarchy does not.
z1235:Why is there a government's incentive to grow? How do "they" profit by expanding and not by contracting? If so, how is this different from any other entity?
What happens to politicians when they solve problems? Do they get more power? Can they tax more as problems are solved?
Of course not. When government agencies fail, they get more funding and resources. When government agencies succeed, generally they are downsized or stay the same size.
Contrast that with the market. In the free market, when you fail, you can't tax your way out of it. You go bankrupt. The incentives are to succeed, so you can increase market share. The government only increases its political market share if things go badly, not if they go well. That is why government always grows during crisis. Both in power and in debt.
z1235:Wouldn't it also be in the interest of any cooperating group of individuals to grow by gaining ever more power and weapons and by merely taking away property from agents that refuse to voluntarily join their agenda?
No. Because they have to bear the costs of acquisition themselves. States are able to externalize the costs of its property acquisition to the citizenry. Take criminals for example. They prefer to rob people who are not armed, to people who are armed. Stealing sounds like a good game, until you realize it might kill you. Under the state, self-defense is discouraged in favour of the cops. In a free society, citizens would be encouraged to employ people who take their defense seriously, and to engage in self-defense themselves. The Swiss are a good example of the latter.
z1235:Take the mafia or any "protection" racket as an example. What good is your freedom and what would your recourse be in this scenario?
Well, if the mafia harassed me, I would go to another mafia if I couldn't defend myself. With the state, they have a monopoly. There is no one else I can go to. It's unfortunate that we will have mafias, but if we do have them, I want a chance to fight back.
Couple questions for you.
1. What can government do that individuals cooperating cannot?
2. Does an individual have a right to secede from government?
3. Do you support free markets?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
GilesStratton: If that I was what Lam is saying I think there is some distance between our positions, but I'm not sure that is what he's saying. I took his point to be that a lot of the arguments put forth for anarchism work simply because of the assumptions being use. I hear a lot of arguments by "Rothbardians" that essentially depend on the assumption that everybody in a given society is a radical libertarian who gains for whom an invasion of his neighbours property rights would cause disutility.
If that I was what Lam is saying I think there is some distance between our positions, but I'm not sure that is what he's saying. I took his point to be that a lot of the arguments put forth for anarchism work simply because of the assumptions being use. I hear a lot of arguments by "Rothbardians" that essentially depend on the assumption that everybody in a given society is a radical libertarian who gains for whom an invasion of his neighbours property rights would cause disutility.
That may be so but the actual Rothbardian position, which I presume you know, is that any coercive act is indeterminate in terms of utility since you can't calculate the utility changes between the coercer and coercee. Now this has been extended using Rothbards monopoly theory by Hulsmann, that if people believe the state to the beneficial or recognise it as a legitmate authority contra a bunch of bandits then it causes systematic error in all that it does and hence is defecient a priori. Matuj (wrong spelling) does something similar in his calculation debate paper.
GilesStratton: Well, it's no wonder that anarchism "works" under these assumptions, it works because you're assuming the most favourable conditions, and unrealistic conditions to boot. The trick is to show whether or not anarchism works when we're modelling men, not as radical libertarian ideologues but as rational actors in a world of uncertainty and incomplete information.
Well, it's no wonder that anarchism "works" under these assumptions, it works because you're assuming the most favourable conditions, and unrealistic conditions to boot. The trick is to show whether or not anarchism works when we're modelling men, not as radical libertarian ideologues but as rational actors in a world of uncertainty and incomplete information.
As above.
GilesStratton: Like I said, quibbles regarding the moral strength of the average man are worthless. I think it's far easier (and more accurate) to assume that most people are inherently selfish, at which point the question becomes which set of institutions will allow this selfishness to do the most harm and which will cause otherwise selfish actors to work towards "the common good".
Like I said, quibbles regarding the moral strength of the average man are worthless. I think it's far easier (and more accurate) to assume that most people are inherently selfish, at which point the question becomes which set of institutions will allow this selfishness to do the most harm and which will cause otherwise selfish actors to work towards "the common good".
Depending what you mean by selfish but if meant in a Misesian sense then I agree.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
GilesStratton: This final paragraph is directed at both LS and Snowflake, I'm not sure what "NAP/ self ownership" has anything to do with it. But I also think my original exposition was unclear. My point wasn't so much that government can arise out of anarchism, rather, I think that there would be a tendency for centralization with regards to the production of defense.
This final paragraph is directed at both LS and Snowflake, I'm not sure what "NAP/ self ownership" has anything to do with it. But I also think my original exposition was unclear. My point wasn't so much that government can arise out of anarchism, rather, I think that there would be a tendency for centralization with regards to the production of defense.
Depending on the scope and specifics you are thinking of: taking civilized history as a whole I don't think this can be seen as empiricaly true. I would also be half tempted to say it may be empircaly false (though it is most probable that the evidence is inconclusive). Of course, you would have to clarify the scope of the phrase "centralization with regards to the production of defence". If you mean that societies of any size that survived had some degree of military organiziation/ hierarchies, this is most certainly true and would be near impossible to refute empirically .
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Sage, you're still missing my point. I understand what Nozick was attempting in the first section of ASU, I was merely making the point that I think there may be some advantages of centralization with regards to the provision of defense. I'm advancing this very tentatively because I'm not sure of its validity (and LS, this is an answer to your first question). As far as I can see, having a community populated by individuals who have purchased their security from different providers would merely increase the risk of conflict (and hence costs), now, as I said I'm not sure by what mechanism it would occur but I can see the production of defense being provided on a geographical basis.
For what it's worth, I think far too much weight is put on MDAs or PDAs or whatever by the LvMI crowd.
As for Somalia, start a topic here and ask people if they think it's a good example of anarchism. Some will say that it is, without doubt, a great example of the abolition of a state bringing a higher standard of living. Others will say that Somalia is merely comprised of warlords or mini-states now.
Physiocrat, if you want to have a discussion of Hulsmann's piece, send me a PM and we can discuss it through messages. It'll make the whole thing go much easier.
LibertyStudent, I'm glad to know that you've now changed my ranking from a morally bankrupt idiot to somebody who is simply fickle! More seriously though, I'm going to have to dispute the claim that ones views and opinions are merely a function of the money the receive from the state. Moreover, I think we should probably refrain from ad hominem attacks, and if they're going to be made, they should at least be more informed than yours.
Dondolee, do you think you could clarify what you meant?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student: But it doesn't. Iraq didn't protect its citizens from America. Britain did not protect the freedom of Britons against German bombers in WWII. Certainly the US government did not prevent 9/11. So the protection claim is disproven.
Your proofs have holes the size of a bus, I'm afraid. Do you also "disprove" the curing claim of penicilin by listing the names of dead people who had received it?
liberty student: The Jews had no recourse against the Nazis. The people at Waco had no recourse against the US government. Chinese citizens have no recourse against their government. Your government can conscript you (force you to kill or be killed). Your government can take 100% of your income. Under eminent domain, your government can take your land. So we have just disproved another myth about government over anarchy.
Penicilin. And you're at best being disingenious by invoking these examples here and below. Did I ever express an intent to defend any action of any state? I thought we're arguing over anarchy vs mianrchy + sound money.
liberty student: For every episode of violence, there are easily as many periods of peace. Your claims about violence continue to be arbitrary, unproven and I believe untrue. No, because you haven't proven that minarchy provides anything that anarchy does not.
I didn't set out to prove anything, and I'm starting to think that you may have some serious problems as to how proofs really work. I was merely explaining (again) how the optimality (maximizing individual freedom) and viability of anarchy vs minarchy depends on the assumed violence contained in the human self-interest model. No one can "prove" how much violence there REALLY is among humans. Do you agree?
Based on my observations and beliefs about human nature, and given a choice between two territories of similar resources and populations -- 1) anarchy 2) minarchy + sound money -- personally , I would pick (move to) the second one as there I would expect to maximize my individual freedom and potential to prosper. In my previous post I also explained WHY I believe that these goals are more likely to be achieved there. Obviously, you believe that these (assuming similar) goals would be best achieved in 1), and that's fine with me. I sincerely hope that we do get the chance to implement these two models side by side and compare notes on freedoms and prosperity after a 100yr experiment, but I have a feeling it's not likely to happen.
liberty student: Couple questions for you. 1. What can government do that individuals cooperating cannot? 2. Does an individual have a right to secede from government? 3. Do you support free markets?
1. Already asked and addressed in the first paragraph of my previous post.
2. Yes. Move. Or vote and become active to change what you don't like about it. Invoke laws and address courts for recourse if you think you've been wronged by government or any other agent in society. Much better than your "freedom" to pick one "protection" racket over another, I believe.
3. Yes.
Z.
z1235:The state (with its uniform legal system and enforcement) can protect my freedom and property from attacks launched by any other agent from within and from outside the country. In anarchy, anyone with more power than myself can come and take everything I own, including my freedom (slavery) and I would have no recourse whatsoever. You claim that the latter is unlikely. Even if that was true (which I think is not), the utter intensity of that potential loss would make it preferable to trade a little bit of freedom for better visibility (transparent laws) and predictability (limits to government intrusion via constitution and the court system). Additionally, this visibility and predictability allows for much more efficient allocation of productive resources. If I can't know when and what group can decide to just take everything I own, it is much harder to optimally distribute my capital between productive and defensive means.
translation after applying logic filters.
The state (with its uniform legal system and enforcement monopoly power) can protect infringe my freedom and property without systematic dynamic forces working to prevent this; The state can use the spectre of the possibility of attacks launched by any other agent from within and from outside the country to scare me into thinking i better invest all earthly power of life and death over to it now and forever, and this wont have negative consequences or pervert incentives to the provision of good government.. In anarchy as well as under a state, anyone with more power than myself can come and take everything I own, including my freedom (slavery) and I would have no recourse whatsoever. Under anarchy my would be tormentor must be able to overpower a multitude of similarly powerful organisations, organisations such of these have little to gain and everything to lose in going to war with relatively vaster loose affiliation of non-rogue justice agencies, whose conduct is dynamically orientated towards just action by the spontaneous order of the market.. Under a State, we have instituted an agency far more powerful than myself or anyone that would volunteer to help me, and that's good because.... who knows? i don't.
the utter intensity of the potential loss of being tormented by a monopoly government would make it preferable to trade a little bit of fear in the efficacy of free markets for better visibility (transparent laws) and predictability (limits to government intrusion via competitive incentives). Additionally, this visibility and predictability allows for much more efficient allocation of productive resources. If I can't know when and what monopoly super group can decide to just take everything I own, it is much harder to optimally distribute my capital between productive and defensive means.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
GilesStratton:LibertyStudent, I'm glad to know that you've now changed my ranking from a morally bankrupt idiot to somebody who is simply fickle!
You're too young to be a morally bankrupt idiot. We won't know that for at least another 10 years.
GilesStratton:More seriously though, I'm going to have to dispute the claim that ones views and opinions are merely a function of the money the receive from the state.
That wasn't my claim. Shame that as simple as it was, you missed the gist of it. Review it again.
GilesStratton:Moreover, I think we should probably refrain from ad hominem attacks, and if they're going to be made, they should at least be more informed than yours.
Where was the ad hominem? Don't get me wrong, I had about 6 or 7 really good Ad homs in there, but I edited them out before posting. So really, are you just crying wolf, or did I attack you personally?
z1235:Your proofs have holes the size of a bus, I'm afraid. Do you also "disprove" the curing claim of penicilin by listing the names of dead people who had received it?
I'm simply matching your standard for proof.
z1235:Penicilin. And you're at best being disingenious by invoking these examples here and below. Did I ever express an intent to defend any action of any state? I thought we're arguing over anarchy vs mianrchy + sound money.
I'm not being disingenuous. You are defending the minarchist state as superior to anarchy. I am asking you to prove your case.
z1235:I didn't set out to prove anything, and I'm starting to think that you may have some serious problems as to how proofs really work.
No, you didn't. But I asked you to when you argued by assertion.
z1235:I was merely explaining (again) how the optimality (maximizing individual freedom) and viability of anarchy vs minarchy depends on the assumed violence contained in the human self-interest model. No one can "prove" how much violence there REALLY is among humans. Do you agree?
You haven't explained that however. You have merely asserted it. And yes, no one can prove how much violence there really is, yet you have continued to assert that an extremely violent past validates the necessity for a state.
To review this.
Cooperative individuals can do this. There is no reason why people can't come to a legal system voluntarily (they have before) and work for protection ala mutual aid. History is ripe with examples of this. And obviously it is true, because there is nothing a state can do that cooperative individuals cannot, except.... monopoly.
z1235:Yes. Move. Or vote and become active to change what you don't like about it. Invoke laws and address courts for recourse if you think you've been wronged by government or any other agent in society. Much better than your "freedom" to pick one "protection" racket over another, I believe.
So you do not support secession. Thus the Russians in the USSR should have fled the country or voted. They had no fundamental right to their own lives and property. The government superceded their individual rights. Is that correct?
z1235:Yes. (Do you support free markets)
If you support free markets, why do you not support free markets in defense? Why not in law? If you don't support free markets in defense and law, aren't you arguing for global governance with a single supplier of a uniform code of planetary justice? No more countries, just UN provinces?
nirgrahamUK:translation after applying logic filters.
Fine work.
Democracy for Breakfast: So how exactly would you ensure that these private military corporations and volunteer groups wouldn't wage warfare over more territory? or become states themselves? What is preventing people from Civil War without a State such as ours? In the Anarchic society of Tribal England, civil conflict was the norm among the Celts, Jutes, and other tribes. In a world of Private Property rights, why wouldn't land owners engage in conflict to obtain more land?
This question comes from a perspective problem caused by having spent your entire life under a single state. The anarcho-capitalist essentially sees the whole world as a collection of people and entities composed of people, including some entities that fall under the category "state". The AC then sees that the state is violent and destructive, and wants to get rid of it. He's not proposing some "system", he's just saying he wants to get rid of a massive criminal organization.
This doesn't mean no other massive criminal organizations can form and gain power. According to some AC's it'd be tough to do with the right social structure (though I can easily see how this comes off as rationalizing), but not impossible. But in any case, you can be sure that AC's will be opposed to the new state just as much as they are opposed to the old state or any violent crime.
nirgrahamUK:The state (with its uniform legal system and enforcement monopoly power) can protect infringe my freedom and property without systematic dynamic forces working to prevent this;
I keep hearing about these fabulous "systematic dynamic forces", non-monoply legal systems and powers. Is there anything stronger than armchair handwaving and assumptions that this "free market" (sounds more like a free-for-all to me) will somehow magically incentivise these "forces" not to get seriously out of hand and into an utter societal chaos? Without a transparent and UNIFORM (yes, monopoly) legal system how does one even establish that someone has been wronged or trampled on? The plethora of competing "free market" legal systems would regularly yield a plethora of "just" judgments resulting in a plethora of conflicting enforcements. Is this the "free-market" we're talking about? What then? Might is right? The law of the jungle? Hasn't mankind been there already, before it started walking on two feet? If that's in any way optimal, why did we even bother devolving(?) from there? And finally, how come, in the thousands of years of recorded history no society has even come close to converging to this optimal societal Nirvana, not even by chance -- so I can't even study one to point out any shortcomings. Mankind has repeatedly converged to a whole spectrum of societies with uniform legal codes and "monopoly" governments (some totalitarian, some more free) so you can have a field day dissecting them. Lucky you, tough luck for me, right?
I think establishing a real anarchy would be the quickest way of converting all anarchists. (Although, how does one really "establish" lack of any establishment?) They'd be begging for the 'good old days' of law and order and "monopoly" legal systems that allowed them to play their anarchy games from their armchairs in peace. Without going into details, I say this because I (and my family and friends) have personally been exposed to crumbling legal systems and disapearance of law and order (Yes, I' was not born in the States). Believe me, that's not a "free market" any decent human being would want to be competing in.
z1235: Without a transparent and UNIFORM (yes, monopoly) legal system how does one even establish that someone has been wronged or trampled on? The plethora of competing "free market" legal systems would regularly yield a plethora of "just" judgments resulting in a plethora of conflicting enforcements. Is this the "free-market" we're talking about? What then? Might is right? The law of the jungle?
Without a transparent and UNIFORM (yes, monopoly) legal system how does one even establish that someone has been wronged or trampled on? The plethora of competing "free market" legal systems would regularly yield a plethora of "just" judgments resulting in a plethora of conflicting enforcements. Is this the "free-market" we're talking about? What then? Might is right? The law of the jungle?
Don't meant to interfere in the debate, but your conclusions naturally lead to this question, which you have avoided:
liberty student: If you support free markets, why do you not support free markets in defense? Why not in law? If you don't support free markets in defense and law, aren't you arguing for global governance with a single supplier of a uniform code of planetary justice? No more countries, just UN provinces?
z1235: Is there anything stronger than armchair handwaving and assumptions that this "free market" (sounds more like a free-for-all to me) will somehow magically incentivise these "forces" not to get seriously out of hand and into an utter societal chaos?
there's nothing magic about it. its economics. people are always coming on here and saying they believe in laissez-faire, and it turns out they know little about how it works, and don't much believe in it after all. shame.
z1235:Without a transparent and UNIFORM (yes, monopoly) legal system how does one even establish that someone has been wronged or trampled on
at the moment you are arguing from ignorance. you could read up about polycentric legal orders maybe...
z1235:The plethora of competing "free market" legal systems would regularly yield a plethora of "just" judgments resulting in a plethora of conflicting enforcements.
z1235:Hasn't mankind been there already, before it started walking on two feet? If that's in any way optimal, why did we even bother devolving(?) from there? And finally, how come, in the thousands of years of recorded history no society has even come close to converging to this optimal societal Nirvana, not even by chance -- so I can't even study one to point out any shortcomings. Mankind has repeatedly converged to a whole spectrum of societies with uniform legal codes and "monopoly" governments (some totalitarian, some more free) so you can have a field day dissecting them. Lucky you, tough luck for me, right?
if its a good idea we would have done it already fallacy.
z1235:Without going into details, I say this because I (and my family and friends) have personally been exposed to crumbling legal systems and disapearance of law and order (Yes, I' was not born in the States). Believe me, that's not a "free market" any decent human being would want to be competing in.Z.
which protection agency were you paying dues to?
liberty student: So you do not support secession. Thus the Russians in the USSR should have fled the country or voted. They had no fundamental right to their own lives and property. The government superceded their individual rights. Is that correct?
What does this have to do with the price of gasoline or with minarchy? I guess, the correct answer would be: "They should establish an anarchy"? Is that what you would have "supported" as a solution to their predicament? Where were you when they needed you?
Because we can't speak of markets (free or otherwise) in law. You don't BUY law (well, unless we start talking about bribing judges, so whever pays more gets more "law" on their side), as much as you don't OWN law, hence you can't TRADE law. Thus, without the ability to OWN and TRADE X, one cannot speak of any MARKETS (free or otherwise) for X. Laws are THE rules (uniform and transparent for anyone to see) according to which agents in society play the game of life. These rules may or may not support free markets, ownership or free exchange of property. They are the rules that define the nature and structure of society. They, unlike pork bellies or IBM shares, are the foundations for free markets -- not subjects to them.
Once you have established a society with laws, you need to have a court system to arbitrate any disputes between agents according to these laws, and a system of enforcement of these laws and judgments. So how can we speak of OWNING or TRADING this enforcement (force, power) in a free market environment? If am found guilty by a court of law that I have come to your house and stolen your gold, can I then go ahead and (in a free market fashion) "buy" myself some defense from the impending enforcement? Or how about I just "buy" the powers of enforcement themselves (bribery) so they don't proceed with the court order? Is this what you are talking about?
To conclude, in a civilized society, laws and their enforcement are NOT commodities. They can not be traded, thus there's no need for markets in them (free or otherwise).
I don't see how global governance and planetary justice follows from the above.
Erm, they're services provided much like healthcare is... so yes, there is a "need" for them, and yes, they can exist, and no, there's no need for a monopoly over them.
To darkness I condemn you...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap