if we want a stateless society, why dont a team of private investors and political refugees colonize Somalia
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Stranger:But the point is that I love my country. Don't you?
I've traveled a wee bit. I like my country, but in many ways, it is inferior to others I have been to. I don't feel I particularly owe it anything in the way of allegiance or loyalty.
I could learn to love a free country, regardless of the climate or geography. Being free is more important to me than acknowledging my history and the history of my ancestors with a particular state.
@all, I second the Liberty Colony idea. It's possible that an exodus may at one point be the only option left to us. The world is certainly not getting less statist. Things are moving in the wrong direction, and while choosing to stand and fight might be honourable, it's wise to pick the battles you can win. If you can't beat the state, then change the game. Plus the entrepreneurial opportunities for a Liberty Colony could be tremendous.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
GilesStratton: Danno:That'd be a fun place to live - a stack of 6 turnpikes going past my house, one of which I must do business with to get off of my property - but I'd need to deal with several of them, likely, to get to all of the places I'd like to go to That wouldn't happen, you wouldn't to know why monopolies wouldn't arise in certain areas. I said previously, roads that lead to houses in urban areas would largely be dead end in order to keep the cost down. Obviously it wouldn't be worth it to build 6 layers of turn pikes there for only a few customers. Assuming for whatever reason they did build it, people would simply move, since I doubt they'd want "6 layers of turnpikes outside your house" and those that stayed or moved into these houses simply wouldn't have a problem with that.
Danno:That'd be a fun place to live - a stack of 6 turnpikes going past my house, one of which I must do business with to get off of my property - but I'd need to deal with several of them, likely, to get to all of the places I'd like to go to
That wouldn't happen, you wouldn't to know why monopolies wouldn't arise in certain areas. I said previously, roads that lead to houses in urban areas would largely be dead end in order to keep the cost down. Obviously it wouldn't be worth it to build 6 layers of turn pikes there for only a few customers. Assuming for whatever reason they did build it, people would simply move, since I doubt they'd want "6 layers of turnpikes outside your house" and those that stayed or moved into these houses simply wouldn't have a problem with that.
Okay - in what way *would* I have several different road owners competing for my business, without the turnpikes?
You do seem to minimize the effort and cash it would take those people to "simply move" - particularly since selling a house with 6 layers of roads overshadowing it would present something of a problem.
There is, as far as I know, no perfect solution to the conflict between this person who would like to do whatever they'd like on their own property, and that person who does not want to suffer the effects next door. Current USAian government is remarkably imperfect in this regard - I'm unclear about how anarchy would somehow present a perfect (or even as efficient) solution to the problem.
Danno:but it'd lose me the economy of scale that makes my water bill as low as it is. Because monopolies are notorious for keeping prices low. You assume the only way to get water to houses is through underground pipes, it isn't.
Danno:but it'd lose me the economy of scale that makes my water bill as low as it is.
Because monopolies are notorious for keeping prices low. You assume the only way to get water to houses is through underground pipes, it isn't.
Actually, monopolies are notorious (famous with a negative connotation) for keeping prices high; the fact is that the only two ways to maintain a monopoly are to keep prices too low to compete against, or the use of force. In the provision of an inexpensive commodity such as water, with a high infrastructure cost (such as water pipes), a monopoly is probably the most efficient method - how would this work without government force and regulation?
Yes, I'm aware that, rather than using underground pipes to get water to my house, I could buy little plastic bottles of water at the grocery store and use that for bathing, laundry, and watering my garden. Do you intend to imply that there is an alternative method that is as cost-efficient as underground pipes for water delivery?
Danno:This would greatly enhance my shopping experience, and make it so much more pleasant for my customers to travel to my shop, or to travel to their jobs. Under the vision you propose here, the only use for roads would be to visit the neighbors, or work at the neighborhood industry - reducing, rather than expanding, everyone's practical choices. I thought your issue with anarchism is that it isn't viable, not that it isn't desirable?
Danno:This would greatly enhance my shopping experience, and make it so much more pleasant for my customers to travel to my shop, or to travel to their jobs. Under the vision you propose here, the only use for roads would be to visit the neighbors, or work at the neighborhood industry - reducing, rather than expanding, everyone's practical choices.
I thought your issue with anarchism is that it isn't viable, not that it isn't desirable?
Anarchy is, philosophically, desirable. Its practical application, in some situations, are so undesirable as to make it unviable.
It wouldn't reduce anybody's opportunities anyway, you'd still be able to get to places (more efficiently too) there would simply be roads in urban areas for the purpose of getting to houses and those roads designed to travel long distances.
Allow me to hazard a guess that you do not live in a large metropolitan area. A road system that serves my house, but does not serve the grocery store 2 miles away, is not going to make my life better or more free. I suspect that you're passing along ideas that you've heard, but have not thought about carefully. How would a multi-owner road system be more efficient, and its services be billed? A toll system works, somewhat, on long-distance roads - but it'd be a nightmare on urban streets. Traffic congestion is enough of a problem without adding a multitude of bottlenecks.
Danno:I never said that governments could be trusted for anything. That's why I'd prefer one that was small and nervous, and only used for those things for which is was the most efficient provider. It's still inconsistant, government can provide services X efficiently but not every other service, why is this?
Danno:I never said that governments could be trusted for anything. That's why I'd prefer one that was small and nervous, and only used for those things for which is was the most efficient provider.
It's still inconsistant, government can provide services X efficiently but not every other service, why is this?
This is a straw man argument. Alcoa was an actual monopoly, because they could provide aluminum more efficiently than anyone else. Standard Oil was a near-monopoly, because they provided oil products better and cheaper than anyone else.
Nobody argued that Alcoa could have competed with Standard Oil by expanding their product line.
Road systems are not equivalent to health care services or education, which are not equivalent to each other (outside of teaching hospitals). The Mayo Clinic is world-famous for providing health care; nobody is clamoring for them to start building or maintaining roads. Your insistence that such disparate services are equivalent is disingenuous, at best.
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
GilesStratton: Roads in urban areas wouldn't really be a problem,{...} Walter Block did a rather good paper on this actually I advise you read it. All I could find were his _Road Socialism, International Journal of Value-Based Management, 9 (1996)_ and a podcast with him and Lew Rockwell - and I avoid podcasts where possible, absorbing text far easier than audio. Road Socialism focused primarily upon the flaws in methodology of economists he disagreed with, and safety issues on highways - it did not cover urban, neighborhood roads. Could I get a title or pointer toward the paper you're referring to? Thanks. The avatar graphic text: "Are you coming to bed?" "No, this is important" "What?" "Someone is wrong on the internet." | Post Points: 20
Roads in urban areas wouldn't really be a problem,{...}
Walter Block did a rather good paper on this actually I advise you read it.
All I could find were his _Road Socialism, International Journal of Value-Based Management, 9 (1996)_ and a podcast with him and Lew Rockwell - and I avoid podcasts where possible, absorbing text far easier than audio. Road Socialism focused primarily upon the flaws in methodology of economists he disagreed with, and safety issues on highways - it did not cover urban, neighborhood roads.
Could I get a title or pointer toward the paper you're referring to?
Thanks.
Twirlcan:Well...sometimes. I would not have learned Bulgarian if that rule was completely true. Sometimes the people who know English well are shockingly untrustworthy.
Did I say everyone who spoke English was trustworthy? My point is if you want to make it work you can. Language is not usually the barrier to getting things done.
Danno: GilesStratton: Roads in urban areas wouldn't really be a problem,{...} Walter Block did a rather good paper on this actually I advise you read it. All I could find were his _Road Socialism, International Journal of Value-Based Management, 9 (1996)_ and a podcast with him and Lew Rockwell - and I avoid podcasts where possible, absorbing text far easier than audio. Road Socialism focused primarily upon the flaws in methodology of economists he disagreed with, and safety issues on highways - it did not cover urban, neighborhood roads. Could I get a title or pointer toward the paper you're referring to? Thanks.
GilesStratton: Roads in urban areas wouldn't really be a problem,{...} Walter Block did a rather good paper on this actually I advise you read it. All I could find were his _Road Socialism, International Journal of Value-Based Management, 9 (1996)_ and a podcast with him and Lew Rockwell - and I avoid podcasts where possible, absorbing text far easier than audio. Road Socialism focused primarily upon the flaws in methodology of economists he disagreed with, and safety issues on highways - it did not cover urban, neighborhood roads. Could I get a title or pointer toward the paper you're referring to? Thanks.
Right here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf
I'll reply to your other post soon.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Danno: That's news to me. Every society I've ever heard of had a ruling class, or rulers - I'd love to research some of the societies that have been ungoverned. Could you name a few?
That's news to me. Every society I've ever heard of had a ruling class, or rulers - I'd love to research some of the societies that have been ungoverned. Could you name a few?
This a common misconception about an anarchic society. You assume for this to exist that it means there is 100% compliance and agreement by everybody in the world. There will always be criminals in a society and people violating other peoples rights. The government is the same as any other criminal. In some things and in some places the criminals are numerous and powerful and in other places there are much weaker to the point of non-existence. What you require is that no criminals ever exist. You are correct that your definition of anarchy is impossible.
I would argue that most of the planet currently lives at least in some degree in an anarchic society. For example, the farmers market here where I live is untaxed and unregulated. People selling stuff in the street are untaxed and unregulated. There are lots of examples of this activity.
There will always be somebody somewhere that claims they are in charge. It is the actual application of the coercive force that you should look at.
DennisLeeWilson: Maxliberty: Of course, speaking the local language is always beneficial. I imagine most of the early settlers will not speak the local language. Local transalators will have to be used to some extent. As far as opportunities being limited due to not speaking the local language, my experience is this is true if your looking for a job but not if your the one creating the jobs. Personally, I speak English and Spanish. You live in Costa Rica and speak Spanish, yet the Limon Provence (REAL Limon Project http://libertariannation.org/a/f54s1.html ) is NOT on your proposed colony list. Why is it missing?
Maxliberty: Of course, speaking the local language is always beneficial. I imagine most of the early settlers will not speak the local language. Local transalators will have to be used to some extent. As far as opportunities being limited due to not speaking the local language, my experience is this is true if your looking for a job but not if your the one creating the jobs. Personally, I speak English and Spanish.
Of course, speaking the local language is always beneficial. I imagine most of the early settlers will not speak the local language. Local transalators will have to be used to some extent. As far as opportunities being limited due to not speaking the local language, my experience is this is true if your looking for a job but not if your the one creating the jobs. Personally, I speak English and Spanish.
You live in Costa Rica and speak Spanish, yet the Limon Provence (REAL Limon Project http://libertariannation.org/a/f54s1.html ) is NOT on your proposed colony list.
Why is it missing?
Never heard of it. I will take a look. Thanks.
I'm not sure if these have already been posted, but it seems like these would be immediately relevant for both their coverage of the subject of anarchism and their discussion of the situation in Somalia: Peter Leeson's lecture on anarchy and Ben Powell's lecture on Somalia.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Was there a clearance sale on straw men that I missed?
Maxliberty: Danno: That's news to me. Every society I've ever heard of had a ruling class, or rulers - I'd love to research some of the societies that have been ungoverned. Could you name a few? This a common misconception about an anarchic society. You assume for this to exist that it means there is 100% compliance and agreement by everybody in the world. There will always be criminals in a society and people violating other peoples rights. The government is the same as any other criminal. In some things and in some places the criminals are numerous and powerful and in other places there are much weaker to the point of non-existence. What you require is that no criminals ever exist. You are correct that your definition of anarchy is impossible.
Another straw man. Any society, anarchic or not, must have some means of dealing with criminals to survive. My understanding of rational anarchy was that there would be *no* respected organization that claimed the sole right to initiate force - that only defensive, reactive force would be tolerable, and that those who did not wish to defend themselves would be able to hire that service from others. This would be different from a minimalist government in that, if one did not wish to do business with Acme Defense Services, one could handily hire Zenith Protection, instead. That all transactions, while perhaps necessary, would be voluntary - you could opt out of hiring any defense service if you wished, and take care of problems yourself (while not violating the rights of the neighbors, of course.)
The government (USAian or otherwise) is NOT the same as any other criminal - criminals do not claim the moral high ground. Enslavement via force with moral right is a governmental vice - criminals just claim sufficient force.
I would argue that most of the planet currently lives at least in some degree in an anarchic society. For example, the farmers market here where I live is untaxed and unregulated. People selling stuff in the street are untaxed and unregulated. There are lots of examples of this activity. There will always be somebody somewhere that claims they are in charge. It is the actual application of the coercive force that you should look at.
Are you seriously suggesting that anarchy == weak, uninvolved government? That would, indeed, be the first time that I'd heard that assertion. If that is the case, what is the difference between minimal government proponents and anarchists?
Danno, Confused and Bemused (and remembering Big Al, finally)
and anyone who speaks in generalities and total ignorance of the facts is a ...?
GilesStratton: Danno: GilesStratton: Roads in urban areas wouldn't really be a problem,{...} Walter Block did a rather good paper on this actually I advise you read it. {...}Could I get a title or pointer toward the paper you're referring to? Thanks. Right here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf
Danno: GilesStratton: Roads in urban areas wouldn't really be a problem,{...} Walter Block did a rather good paper on this actually I advise you read it. {...}Could I get a title or pointer toward the paper you're referring to? Thanks.
GilesStratton: Roads in urban areas wouldn't really be a problem,{...} Walter Block did a rather good paper on this actually I advise you read it.
{...}Could I get a title or pointer toward the paper you're referring to?
Thanks - I've read it. Fairly convincing in the "could improve traffic flow", long-distance roads, and other aspects - but it only tangentially addresses the "I can't leave my house without using the road in front of it" problem, and in that, only poo-poohs the problem by way of analogies. His system would, perhaps, work - for new construction, new neighborhoods constructed on underutilized land - nobody would buy new houses built in areas without reasonable access costs. This is not necessarily applicable to those of us living in established neighborhoods, if an unscrupulous private business bought the road with the intention of bleeding the people that must use it dry.
In short, the business that owned the street at the end of my driveway would be able to be as unreasonable as they liked - I would not have an alternative. Forgive me if I'm happier knowing that I can rally my fellow citizens in case of horrid mismanagement of that company and vote for other management teams to replace the current scoundrels. Not that this system is ideal - far from it. It just seems more secure to me than putting that road into the possession of a private company over whom I have no recourse. Mr. Block's objection to my emotional misapprehensions are well and good - but not convincing.
When transporter or private aircar technology becomes available, competition becomes possible, and government can let the business be taken up by the private sector. While competition is impossible, it behooves us to leave the operation of the roads under an organization over which the customers have (nominal) control.
baoinvestor: and anyone who speaks in generalities and total ignorance of the facts is a ...?
Socialist? Liberal? Democrat? Sorry - the temptation was just too great.
Were you under the impression that people would know who you were addressing, or what you were referring to? That impression may have been in error.
Danno, who should be making hay (or fresh-painted walls) while the sun shines.
Danno: Another straw man. Any society, anarchic or not, must have some means of dealing with criminals to survive. My understanding of rational anarchy was that there would be *no* respected organization that claimed the sole right to initiate force - that only defensive, reactive force would be tolerable, and that those who did not wish to defend themselves would be able to hire that service from others. This would be different from a minimalist government in that, if one did not wish to do business with Acme Defense Services, one could handily hire Zenith Protection, instead. That all transactions, while perhaps necessary, would be voluntary - you could opt out of hiring any defense service if you wished, and take care of problems yourself (while not violating the rights of the neighbors, of course.)
Good so you understand how it works.
Danno: The government (USAian or otherwise) is NOT the same as any other criminal - criminals do not claim the moral high ground. Enslavement via force with moral right is a governmental vice - criminals just claim sufficient force.
You are either stealing or you are not. There is no moral high ground in that sense. Plenty of people accused of beig criminals are actually not and plenty of people who claim the moral high ground are actually criminals.
Danno:Are you seriously suggesting that anarchy == weak, uninvolved government?
Yes, uninvolved government would be an anarchic society. Uninvolved government= No government. Minimal government proponents can't make the final logical conclusion that if forcing people to do something is wrong then forcing people to do some things is wrong.
To advocate for freedom does not mean advocating for utopia. Like I said, there will always be criminals attempting to take your freedom.
Danno: GilesStratton: Danno: GilesStratton: Roads in urban areas wouldn't really be a problem,{...} Walter Block did a rather good paper on this actually I advise you read it. {...}Could I get a title or pointer toward the paper you're referring to? Thanks. Right here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf Thanks - I've read it. Fairly convincing in the "could improve traffic flow", long-distance roads, and other aspects - but it only tangentially addresses the "I can't leave my house without using the road in front of it" problem, and in that, only poo-poohs the problem by way of analogies. His system would, perhaps, work - for new construction, new neighborhoods constructed on underutilized land - nobody would buy new houses built in areas without reasonable access costs. This is not necessarily applicable to those of us living in established neighborhoods, if an unscrupulous private business bought the road with the intention of bleeding the people that must use it dry. In short, the business that owned the street at the end of my driveway would be able to be as unreasonable as they liked - I would not have an alternative. Forgive me if I'm happier knowing that I can rally my fellow citizens in case of horrid mismanagement of that company and vote for other management teams to replace the current scoundrels. Not that this system is ideal - far from it. It just seems more secure to me than putting that road into the possession of a private company over whom I have no recourse. Mr. Block's objection to my emotional misapprehensions are well and good - but not convincing. When transporter or private aircar technology becomes available, competition becomes possible, and government can let the business be taken up by the private sector. While competition is impossible, it behooves us to leave the operation of the roads under an organization over which the customers have (nominal) control.
Danno, what you are saying is that the free-market is not an optimal provider of some services. What is the criteria you are using to establish that the free-market is good for some things and not others? What examples do you have where the free-market is in competition with government and the government is providing a better more efficient product for less? I know of no examples where government is the best provider of anything.
Danno:Was there a clearance sale on straw men that I missed?
Apparently not...
Danno:The government (USAian or otherwise) is NOT the same as any other criminal - criminals do not claim the moral high ground. Enslavement via force with moral right is a governmental vice - criminals just claim sufficient force.
How's that? Some sort of Robin Hood defense you've concocted?
So If I go out and vandalize some private property like Greenpeace or those anarco-commies like to do then I'm not a common criminal but am justified because I have the moral high ground?
You know, if it walks like a duck...
I am kind of curious on your views about how coercive monopolies such as roads can fit within a society free of coercion? Let's say someone doesn't chose to pay for the road in your classic free rider problem sort of way, then what are you going to do?
There is no really effective way to restrict someone from traveling across public roads so you can't deny them service like if they don't pay their water or electric bill so how do you get them to pay without violating their natural rights?
Danno:Okay - in what way *would* I have several different road owners competing for my business, without the turnpikes?
Simple, different routes, different forms of transportation, or altenatively turnpikes and the like. As I've said most roads (this is incorrect as Stranger pointed out, but for lack of a better word) leading to houses would be dead ends to reduce costs. However, even if they aren't and I happen to live on a road that is poorly maintained (or expensive)I can either bear with it or I can park my car elsewhere and walk to it to avoid using the road, use whatever form of "public transport" would arise, move house if I find it that troublesome cycle to work and once more avoid using the road. This, alongside other factors such as the fact that fewer people would visit me would either force the company to improve the quality and lower the price or go out of buisness.
Of course, people built tanks to hold the water which is delivered by somebody else in large quantities. It's a silly challenge anyway, if I can't find a way to do that doesn't mean the free market can't.
Danno: Road systems are not equivalent to health care services or education, which are not equivalent to each other (outside of teaching hospitals). The Mayo Clinic is world-famous for providing health care; nobody is clamoring for them to start building or maintaining roads. Your insistence that such disparate services are equivalent is disingenuous, at best.
False analogy.
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