I was thinking this afternoon mainly about banking under anarchy. Say I start an account with a bank,but with no gov't ID's, what would prevent others from withdrawing in my name???? Would the bank begin to issue ID cards or have fingerprints on file??? I don't know if this has been discussed before but has anybody heard anything on this????
Several "universal" ID systems will probably compete for banks' business. If nothing else, banks would come up with their own form of ID.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Theres no reason that IDs such as drivers licenses, photo insurance, credit cards with photo ID, and any other such IDs could not exist in a free society.
Also, certain regions, be they cities, towns, or neighborhoods could have mandatory indentification for their residence if safety is considered an issue for those people. People that consider photo ID too intrusive would have to option of opting out of such communities and thus the market would arrive at an optimal level of neighborhoods of areas that require photo identification.
Hey, this is a private residence man...
javier: I was thinking this afternoon mainly about banking under anarchy. Say I start an account with a bank,but with no gov't ID's, what would prevent others from withdrawing in my name???? Would the bank begin to issue ID cards or have fingerprints on file??? I don't know if this has been discussed before but has anybody heard anything on this????
Numbered accounts reduce the problem of identify theft significantly. For confirmation of ownership of the account, there could be passwords, passphrases, biometrics, keys, and any number of other measures to prevent account theft.
Corporations are an extension of the state.
I've thought a lot about this and think that it is more than likely that people will carry some form of identification much like our drivers licenses. There are several reasons but the most important is to be able to prove who you are, specifically to banking institutions and perhaps other organizations that would require some form of identification in order to use their services. I believe that you will have several different organizations established to provide identification cards for people who so chose them. The great thing about these organizations is that they will be completely secure and completely voluntary. They might ask for finger prints, retinal scans, photographs, etc., etc. The great thing is that in a free society you will be able to chose whether or not you want identification and pick which company you want to provide it based off of their reputation for quality service and reliability. And of course those companies with the highest rankings will be the ones whose identification cards are accepted by banks and merchants.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
As I understand it, certain anonimous online banks already exist and have no need for government issued ID. eCache, for example.
I would like to start off by saying the following: when people pay me in cash, I do not care who they are. In fact, it is usually easier if that way.
If a person can not pay me in cash and expects me to accept an I.O.U. instead, that is when I need to know who he is.
javier: I was thinking this afternoon mainly about banking under anarchy.
Permit me to play the devil's advocate here: you are assuming banks will exist as they currently do.
You are also assuming that the banks will want to know your identification too. Is that a fair assumption? Maybe and maybe not.
Nobody knows how the banking sector would evolve. Under anarchy, a bank may not care about your identity. I think they only care about your identity mainly because the government forces people to pay tax.
I believe most people only use banks now because they have no choice. Without government coercion, we will probably see a lot more cash or anonymous transactions.
javier: Say I start an account with a bank,but with no gov't ID's, what would prevent others from withdrawing in my name????
The bank could simply issue you a bank note with a date on it.
-------
I believe sincerely that under true anarchy, people will likely only do business with their neighbors. You do not always need ID cards to identify your neighbors.
Charles Anthony: Nobody knows how the banking sector would evolve. Under anarchy, a bank may not care about your identity. I think they only care about your identity mainly because the government forces people to pay tax. I believe most people only use banks now because they have no choice. Without government coercion, we will probably see a lot more cash or anonymous transactions.
Two good points but I don't think that will be the case. I would say most, but perhaps not all, banks would care about the identity of their customers if for nothing else their customers are entrusting their hard earned money to the care and safe keeping of the bank and would like to know the bank is doing everything they can to ensure that only the account holder has access to the money. There will probably be some financial institutions that specialize in anonymous transactions because some people might feel they need to be a little more secretive about what they do with their money.
I believe most people use banks today because of convenience. It is much easier to have your paycheck directly deposited into your checking account than driving down to the bank to cash it. It is much easier (and safer) to pay using a check or debit card than to carry around large amounts of cash. Debit cards and checks can be canceled if stolen, cash cannot. Paying bills is much easier when you can draft it out of your checking account over the internet or write them a check. If I had to pay cash for all of my bills it would be impossible since my car payment goes to California, my credit card payments go to Delaware, etc., etc. Shopping is easier with a bank because I don't have to drive 30 miles to the nearest book store to buy the new Ron Paul book. I can just order online with Amazon, something I couldn't do if I was paying cash.
Charles Anthony: The bank could simply issue you a bank note with a date on it.
And what if I lost it or it got damaged or destroyed? How do I prove to the bank that I am who I say I am? How do I get my money back?
Charles Anthony: I believe sincerely that under true anarchy, people will likely only do business with their neighbors. You do not always need ID cards to identify your neighbors.
I don't. I think everything will continue much the same way it is. Because of airplanes and instant communications, the ability to purchase something made by some tribesman in Africa over the internet, etc., etc. the global economy will continue just like it is today, except that now that there are no government regulations barring me from trading with North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc., I will be able to purchase and sell goods in those countries as well. We will still have large multi-national corporations, still have large international banks, etc. we will just be free of the state and its control over our lives.
KingMonkey,
You enumerated a lot of (transportation, communications, shipping) industries which flourish as a direct result of government subsidization.
Charles Anthony: KingMonkey, You enumerated a lot of (transportation, communications, shipping) industries which flourish as a direct result of government subsidization.
Ah, so your point is that once we transition to a libertarian anarchist society we will stop trading with people in different parts of the world, stop traveling to various places for vacation, for business, or to visit distant friends and that we will instantaniously stop talking to people hundreds of miles away all because you believe transportation communication and shipping FLOURISH under government subsidation?!?! If anything those things are hampered under government subisation and regulations.
Transportation is held up by excessive regulatory controls and paperwork that adds millions of dollars in expense. Communications are held up because the state has assumed a monopoly over airwaves and other things needed for an efficient telecommunications system and shipping is made more difficult because you've got to pay tariffs and other fees but navigate the every widing pit of international trade agreements, getting approval from various trade agencies to ship items, taxes, surcharges, corrupt officials wanting bribes and the ever present trade sanctions of different nations. Not to mention one government might subsidize this industry making their products artificially cheaper on the internation market. If anything it is amazing that we have the things we do. You can literally ship something around the world in less than a day even with all of the red tape that shipping companies must go through. I can talk to friends in Ireland from my home in Texas even though my cell phone provider had to pay ridiculous amounts of money to the FCC for the "rights" to use those airwaves.
In an anarchist society all of these things will become much easier and true innovation and progress can really be made making trade and friendship with other peoples around the world that much easier.
Charles Anthony: You enumerated a lot of (transportation, communications, shipping) industries which flourish as a direct result of government subsidization.
In 1989, before the collapse of the government, the national airline had only one airplane. Now there are approximately fifteen airlines, over sixty aircraft, six international destinations, and more domestic routes in Somalia. Private airlines, including Air Somalia and Dallo Airlines, serve several domestic locations as well as Djibouti, the United Arab Emirates, Paris and London. According to a 2005 World Bank report, the "private airline business in Somalia is now thriving with more than five carriers and price wars between the companies." Mohammed Yassin Olad, owner of Daallo Airlines, has stated that the absence of government has led to both difficulties and benefits, and commented that "corruption is not a problem, because there is no government…We build the airports and we service the airports and we only fly when we are sure it's safe". A small fishing village prior to the fall of the state, Bosaso developed a lucrative import/export trade of U.S. $15 million per year out of its port during the 1990s.The population grew in eight years from 5,000 to 150,000, sustained by public services provided on a competitive basis by private enterprise, and court systems, schools and a university founded by the local community.
From wikipedia. The point of anarchy is to have society flourish. Who would support the cause if you try to convince them we are returning to a time when a humans life consisted of a 30 mile radius
I will be interesting to see what will happen to Somalia if they continue to operate without a government. If they can ever get a handle on the war lords or really US intervention in their country, a true anarchist society might really spring up. They are well along the way to the ultimate in freedom. They've just got to get the warlords and the US out.
kingmonkey: I will be interesting to see what will happen to Somalia if they continue to operate without a government. If they can ever get a handle on the war lords or really US intervention in their country, a true anarchist society might really spring up. They are well along the way to the ultimate in freedom. They've just got to get the warlords and the US out.
from what I understand the warlords are predominantly just in mogadishu leaving other areas of the country like somliland autonomous and without gov't
kingmonkey:Ah, so your point is that once we transition to a libertarian anarchist society we will stop trading with people in different parts of the world, stop traveling to various places for vacation, for business, or to visit distant friends and that we will instantaniously stop talking to people hundreds of miles away all because you believe transportation communication and shipping FLOURISH under government subsidation?!?!
kingmonkey:If anything those things are hampered under government subisation and regulations.
javier: In 1989, before the collapse of the government, the national airline had only one airplane. Now there are approximately fifteen airlines, over sixty aircraft, six international destinations, and more domestic routes in Somalia. Private airlines, including Air Somalia and Dallo Airlines, serve several domestic locations as well as Djibouti, the United Arab Emirates, Paris and London.
1) Government regulation of airline routes is not the only thing that affects the airline industry. The manufacturing of airplanes is directly subsidized by some governments, for one thing. Governments subsidize millions upon millions of other things which indirectly affect the airline industry too.
2) You may as well say: "Before 1989, I put a frog in a freezer and it went into hibernation mode. After 1989 and the collapse of the government, I put that same frog in boiling water and it died." The collapse of the Somali government is not the only thing that affected the airline industry in Somalia. The rest of the world before 1989 was not the same as it was afterwards.
------
I never understand why people bring up Somalia as a developing anarchy. When the government collapsed, did all coercive agents disappear with it?
Charles Anthony: I never understand why people bring up Somalia as a developing anarchy. When the government collapsed, did all coercive agents disappear with it?
just wanted to respond to your tag. Unlike communists, most an-caps aren't promising utopia. The goal is to get rid of legal institutionalized coersion, but there will always be criminals.
Charles Anthony has a point IMO. E.g., in transportation the State funded the construction of massive highways, making cars more viable. State activities affect and distort the market, like it or not. Would the market have done the same? Maybe, maybe not. It might be unchanged in certain regards, and wholly different in others. State capitalism is surely inferior, and many of the services provided under it might simply be provided more efficiently under anarchism. Others may not be provided until it becomes sufficiently profitable to do so (or at least until people are willing to find other noncoercive ways to provide them.) And this is reasonable.
Inquisitor, all throughout history, the push has been for trade over longer and longer distances. More often than not, governments have stifled trade, not promoted it. Under capitalism, I think that international (if that word continues to have meaning) trade will increase drastically as barriers fall.
Sure, governments definitely do contribute to impeding trade, but they also contribute to inefficiently wasting resources on projects that the market would otherwise not fund, but benefit the ruling political class nonetheless. Certain firms within certain industries are definitely favoured by government activities (and this applies without conceding that the government is offering much of any use.) Zero trade would mean even less funds for the government to expropriate. They know that much. International trade will increase under anarchism (or minarchism), when resources allow for it. And that is a crucial point to understand, and I think that is what Charles Anthony is driving at; the market as it currently is will not necessarily be the market under anarchism.
kingmonkey: Two good points but I don't think that will be the case. I would say most, but perhaps not all, banks would care about the identity of their customers if for nothing else their customers are entrusting their hard earned money to the care and safe keeping of the bank
Two good points but I don't think that will be the case. I would say most, but perhaps not all, banks would care about the identity of their customers if for nothing else their customers are entrusting their hard earned money to the care and safe keeping of the bank
That sounds like a good reason for the customer to be able to identify the bank, not the other way around! There's no reason for banks ever to want to identify their customers - it's not good for security, it's bad for security, both for the bank and the customer; it's only good for governments. There's a whole, rather large, industry in "identity theft" which only exists because "identity" is used as a (lacklustre) substitute for proper security (what you want is a way to prove authority over the account, not identity - totally unrelated things, with different solutions)
Charles Anthony: 1) Government regulation of airline routes is not the only thing that affects the airline industry. The manufacturing of airplanes is directly subsidized by some governments, for one thing. Governments subsidize millions upon millions of other things which indirectly affect the airline industry too.
Correct, and when the market is freed of government control airline companies and airline manufactures will have to stand on their own two feet. But that wont mean we will stop flying to visit other areas of the world and other cultures. That is total nonsense.
Charles Anthony: 2) You may as well say: "Before 1989, I put a frog in a freezer and it went into hibernation mode. After 1989 and the collapse of the government, I put that same frog in boiling water and it died." The collapse of the Somali government is not the only thing that affected the airline industry in Somalia. The rest of the world before 1989 was not the same as it was afterwards.
The point is that the airline industry in Somalia is much better than it was when the state ran it. People can now travel further and more efficiently than before. Another good example is cell phone usage. Before the government collapsed no one had a phone, let alone a cell phone. Now that there is no government, no regulations, no taxes, more and more people are getting landline and cell phones as well as access to the internet (Telecoms thriving in lawless Somalia). And it's cheap and getting cheaper. Instead of reverting back to prehistoric times the Somali people are advancing quicker than some African nations with "stable" governments. If the people of Somalia recognize the benefit of not having a government and can mount an offensive to finally destroy the warlords they would have their own anarcho-capitalist territory free of government coercion.
No one says it will be some magic Utopia where criminals wont reside. But dealing with armed thugs is easier than dealing with armed thugs funded by a strong centralized state.
Inquisitor: Charles Anthony has a point IMO. E.g., in transportation the State funded the construction of massive highways, making cars more viable. State activities affect and distort the market, like it or not. Would the market have done the same? Maybe, maybe not. It might be unchanged in certain regards, and wholly different in others. State capitalism is surely inferior, and many of the services provided under it might simply be provided more efficiently under anarchism. Others may not be provided until it becomes sufficiently profitable to do so (or at least until people are willing to find other noncoercive ways to provide them.) And this is reasonable.
Sure roads might not have developed until more people owned a car but roads were inevitable. No one subsidized Henry Ford when we built his factory and remember most "roads" were nothing more than dirty ruts carved out by horse drawn buggies. People began demanding roads and the state built them. Not the best solution but it was done. As more people bought cars eventually toll roads would be been put in to handle the traffic (and generate lots of money). The reason I think a more free market solution didn't arise is because the US government was given the power to build and maintain post roads which, because by nature the state does this, expanded that meaning to mean roads for general transportation. However, the shear volume of cars that were being produced ensured that paved roads would have been constructed sooner rather than later.
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