By request, I've moved this post from another discussion to its own thread.
I think it's absolutely relevant to explore the ways in which social problems can be solved without a centralized decisionmaker. Ultimately, so-called "market-anarchists" are rejecting the state model for social organization, and are suggesting that it be replaced with a model which relies on decentralized decision-making. Accordingly, it seems worthwhile to discuss some of the ways in which that model can be expected to function, if only to educate the market actors who are being expected to make the system work. After all, keep in mind that anarchy can only function in an ideological atmosphere where people don't want a state. If they do want a state, or don't know how to make things work without one, then they will have a state: you can bet on that.
So as philosophers, economists, etc., it's our job to show why centralized decisionmaking entities like our national governments provide inferior mechanisms for social organization. There are several parts of this argument which need to work in concert in order to truly convince people that decentralized decisionmaking is a truly better alternative. Relying on only one, and leaving out the others, will leave many people unsatisfied, as we're clearly seeing here. As I see it, those in favor of decentralization need to show the following:
1) The model of social organization which holds that everyone needs to get together and find the right answer, and then apply the right answer in the right way, is flawed. There is no "right answer" to social problems which can be discovered, even if we get the smartest, most creative, most honest people together to work on them, and even if there were, there would be no "right way" to implement it that could be instituted by coercing individuals to play their "part" in the solution. As David Schmidtz wrote in his book Elements of Justice, "In effect, there are two ways to agree: We agree on what is correct, or on who has jurisdiction - who gets to decide. Freedom of religion took the latter form; we learned to be liberals in matters of religion, reaching consensus not on what to believe but on who gets to decide. So too with freedom of speech. Isn't it odd that our greatest successes in learning how to live together stem not from agreeing on what is correct but from agreeing to let people decide for themselves?" (6). The advocate of decentralization takes this idea to its extreme, and needs to justify that position. Was John Rawls correct when, in his book Justice as Fairness, he suggested that there are "...profound and irreconcilable differences in citizens' reasonable comprehensive religious and philosophical conceptions of the world, and in their views of the moral and aesthetic values to be sought in human life" (3)? And if so, why is decentralization the proper response?
2) Decentralized solutions can effectively solve social problems, or perform comparably well compared to centralized solutions, or have benefits which make them more desirable than centralized solutions, in spite of their comparative weaknesses. Most people believe that a system of social organization should be judged, at least in part, by its capacity to bring about desirable social outcomes. Economics teaches us that in the absence of cooperation, markets can fail: free riders, externalities, collective action problems, tragedies of the commons, and prisoners' dilemmas can lead individuals acting separately to undesirable outcomes by the standards of all involved (see on this James Buchanan's essay, "Positive Economics, Welfare Economics, and Political Economy"). Advocates of decentralization need not only satisfy the alleged "statists" and "collectivists", who see government as a perfect substitute for a necessarily imperfect market, but also more reasonable objectors who see centralized solutions as having at least some potential for bringing about solutions in instances of prohibitive transaction costs. For example, in his essay, "Market-Based Environmentalism and the Free Market: Substitutes or Complements?," Peter J. Hill writes:
Market solutions are superior to coercive ones because voluntary exchange offers the assurance that social interactions are mutually advantageous. However, transaction costs prevent some potentially profitable voluntary exchanges from taking place. Through the use of appropriate rules, government can provide feasible alternatives. In the standard examples of roads and national defense, the transaction costs of individual exchange are high and the free-rider problem is substantial. Thus, there is at least some potential for using tax-financed provision of these public goods as a corrective mechanism. Of course, government provision of public goods is fraught with numerous problems, and one ought not to be overly optimistic that government will get it right. However, we should not automatically rule out all government intervention (389).
Advocates of decentralization need to show that actually, we should automatically rule out the kinds of solutions that can be produced through government intervention, or that decentralized solutions are capable of effectively emulating government intervention, so we don't lose tools from our policymaking toolkit when we move towards decentralization, or that decentralized solutions can actually produce solutions which work somewhat like government interventions, but are either inherently or more likely to be better suited to solving the problems with which they are charged.
3) Disputes can be resolved effectively and without violence in the absence of centralization of authority. In many ways, international law, corporate and industry dispute resolution, private arbitration, and private security companies set the stage for this conversation. But on the other hand, state imperialism, genocide, human rights violations, and the ineffectiveness of the UN (which lacks sovereignty) bring up questions which demand answers. Advocates of decentralization need to explain how a system without a central authority could bring about the settlement of disputes between individuals and groups effectively and predictably. And further, they need to show that such a system would be adequately resistant to things like bribing, corruption, and caprice, as well as being capable of enforcing rulings effectively. Failing this, decentralists would need to present the case that a decentralized system is more desirable for reasons which are not generally appreciated, perhaps because it would better preserve freedom of choice, it would recognize a lack of objective standards of justice (particularly procedural justice), or it would be better on balance than a centralized solution because of some flaw in the latter.
4) A decentralized system would be beneficial for those members of society who are less advantaged. Any "solution" which explicitly consigns people to death by starvation, exposure, or lack of routine medical care will simply be unacceptable to many people, and for good reason. Advocates of decentralization need to show how disadvantaged groups would benefit or at least not be made worse off by decentralization. And it will not do to demonstrate that those in need can be expected to be generally better off than they would be in other systems. Decentralists must show that there is no reason to worry about the fate of the disadvantaged in a decentralized society, at least any more than we worry in our current society. Alternatively, a case needs to be presented in substantially more convincing fashion that concern about the fate of those in need is misplaced.
5) There is historical precedent for effective decentralized decision-making. This one seems pretty self-explanatory, but ultimately it will not be the advocates of decentralization who actually go out and create the decentralized order which they are promoting. As the saying goes, there is no plan for freedom. Accordingly, it will be important to show that individuals who were not philosophers or "anarchists" have been able to successfully make decentralized decision-making mechanisms work for them, ideally without even realizing that they were doing it. Perhaps more importantly, it will be desirable to demonstrate why the failures of certain ventures in decentralized decision-making do not demonstrate a failure in the general idea.
And personally, I don't think that's such an unreasonable research program. I actually think there's something in there for almost everyone. And luckily, there's a lot already out there to start from. I've actually been toying around with the idea of putting together some sort of association of people working on these issues, and would love to hear from anyone who's interested in joining the effort.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
This sounds like premature optimization to me.
Right now, it's more important to get a handful of people working together counter-economically. Then, work out the details as problems arise.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
What I'm discussing here isn't meant to identify a means to actually achieving decentralization. My points are directed at individuals who seek to understand the nature of decentralized decisionmaking from an academic or intellectual point of view. If you think about it, it's like one person saying "We need a boat, so let's start building!" and another saying, "It would be great if we had a better understanding of boats so we could build a really great one someday in the future." The former could very reasonably say to the latter, "If you keep your head in the clouds, we'll never get out on the water!" And the latter could just as easily reply, "But if we rush into things without knowing what we're doing, the whole thing could sink and we might end up right where we started, or somewhere far worse! And further, if we can come up with a really good blueprint, we might be able to convince a lot more people to help us!" I think if we are to be successful, we need to balance those two points of view, not choose one and ignore the other.
So I hear you loud and clear when you say we should get started. If you think Agorist direct action is the best way to go, then have at it. And I wish you all the luck in the world.
But as an academic-type, I'm much more interested in the latter approach. If that doesn't interest you, then that's perfectly okay. But just like I respect your choice in how to pursue a freer and better society, I would hope that you can respect that this project could be worth undertaking.
You need a certain amount of theory to get started. But your description sounded like someone trying to write a specification for Windows Vista just after the transistor was invented. Technology bootstrapping has to occur in a certain order.
If nobody had ever built a boat before, a bunch of logs tied together and actually floating would be impressive.
If there's already a ton of history on boat building, I'd expect a specficiation before starting construction.
I'm only a theoretical counter-economist and not a practical one. I'm planning to make the transition in the next few years. Right now, it's more important to raise awareness of counter-economics than work out to the last detail how a free market would function.
I guess the problem, as I see it, is that many people would only want to get involved in something like counter-economics if they understood what it was hoping to achieve. The basic agorist works are rhetorically impressive, but they simply don't cover the necessary amount of ground in order to convince the kinds of people who would be hesitant to endorse decentralization on some of the grounds discussed above.
The other point is that there's already enough research that's been done in the areas I discussed to get us past the "tying logs together" stage. But as far as I'm aware, there's never been a group dedicated to bringing all that research together and having a debate about it. I'd love to be part of making something like that happen.
"4) A decentralized system would be beneficial for those members of society who are less advantaged. Any "solution" which explicitly consigns people to death by starvation, exposure, or lack of routine medical care will simply be unacceptable to many people, and for good reason. Advocates of decentralization need to show how disadvantaged groups would benefit or at least not be made worse off by decentralization. And it will not do to demonstrate that those in need can be expected to be generally better off than they would be in other systems. Decentralists must show that there is no reason to worry about the fate of the disadvantaged in a decentralized society, at least any more than we worry in our current society. Alternatively, a case needs to be presented in substantially more convincing fashion that concern about the fate of those in need is misplaced."
I found this paragraph especially interesting. I am by no means a proponent of social welfare, but I must admit it would bother me that people without means could become essentially helpless in this kind of society. I have read the first essay of Chaos Theory and it did clear up some of the questions I had about how an anarchial system would work, but it created some more questions for me as well. If people without insurance could not easily do business or get a job in such a society, would this not make it especially difficult for those without means to make something of their life?
A common reply is that such individuals would be the targets of charity, and to some extent, this is true. There are, I believe, many historical examples of charitable individuals taking care of those in desperate need, often with greater success than the centrally planned and administered welfare system we have today. In a free society, where there was no guarantee that the poor would be provided for, we might imagine individuals taking a much more active role in ensuring the welfare of those in need, as the alternative would be to actually have to watch them starve.
Another reply is that in a free society, there would likely be many opportunities for advancement which are illegal in today's society because of labor laws. Licensing laws, minimum wage laws, and mandatory workplace standards all eliminate certain kinds of jobs from existence. But these are often precisely the kinds of jobs which have historically been used by the poorest classes to rise out of poverty. Consider the "plight" of the early immigrants to America, who braved horrible conditions to come here from Europe and elsewhere, only to find a squalid existence waiting for them: life in tenament housing, low wages, bad working conditions, and the like. But do not forget that the children of these poor souls are the ones who rule the economy today; the opportunities given to them, along with the work ethic instilled in them by their parents, led them predictably to success that their parents could scarcely have imagined. That's the way the world used to work, and it's how it could work again if people were free to pursue their goals without interference from the government.
Yet another reply is that even in our current society, we don't do a particularly good job of providing for those in desperate need. Judging an a system by a standard which is not met by any alternative under consideration is inherently problematic, and has given rise to the idea of a "Nirvana fallacy." Perhaps things would not be perfect in a completely decentralized system, but things would not be perfect in any system.
All of the above are interesting points, and I think each of them demands much more research and discussion. I'm aware of some work that's been done already, but I'd love to see these ideas move more into the mainstream discussion.
But I think a much more interesting reply to the question of what would happen to the disadvantaged in a decentralized system is that people would voluntarily form groups to ensure the welfare of their own disadvantaged members. That is, they would voluntarily and freely centralize the mechanism for providing for those in need, rather than taking it upon themselves individually to make sure that their societies were not characterized by the worst kinds of poverty and want. In light of this kind of response, we need to ask ourselves: what level of centralization makes sense? Notice that this doesn't need to be a discussion of the state. We just need to recognize that atomistic individual action might actually prove less effective than collective action of some kind, and this needs to be taken into account. Accordingly, I could definitely see this sort of subject as being particularly worthy of further exploration.
Another extremely interesting reply to this question is that even if we embrace some of the justifications for decentralization, we might have a moral obligation to help those in extreme need (perhaps, some might argue, we have a "collective" obligation; that is, no one person is morally obligated to do it, but if it doesn't get done, it represents a moral failing on the part of the group), and that this obligation might justify certain kinds of coercion. Many libertarians are understandably uncomfortable with this kind of suggestion, but it's important to recognize that many people do not find this unreasonable. Accordingly, another area for further research and discussion, within the realm of ethics and political philosophy, is what kinds of things might justify coercion, and whether extreme poverty and need might satisfy these conditions. Further, if this is so, what might be the appropriate response? How do we deal with uncertainty and reasonable pluralism? All these questions need to be explored, and as far as I'm aware, they haven't been dealt with particularly extensively.
So just on that single point, I think there are a whole range of different projects which might be undertaken. And it would be really cool, I think, to try to bring together different people in different areas of study to try to pursue some answers and further knowledge. As always, don't hesitate to let me know if you're interested in working on this in some capacity; I'm sure I can put you in touch with someone who can help with whatever you're trying to do.
It would greatly interest me to see if the private sector could do a better job of caring for the poor. This would be very practical for this country immediately, as it could justify deconstruction of our social safety net.
I am not saying any of your responses are wrong by any means. In fact, I agree they are all viable solutions. The only problem is, with no governmental structure, the solution would pretty much be just wait and let the goodwill of others take care of those in need. While I certainly agree that man is compassionate, we must realize that the free market would not help those who did not possess the means to help themselves, simply because their would be no profit to it. Of course, more jobs and opporunity would exist for the poor, and in all likelihood the average poor would be better off because they would have the incentive to work hard instead of relying on a government check.
The problem is that it will be very hard to convince Joe Average that this will be the case. If he asks you the question, well what if those things do not happen? What if someone breaks their leg and can't work and no charity will help him? Then there really is no answer we can give him other than, most likely that will not happen. Surely the government does not do a very good job helping people, but people still like the warm fuzzy idea that they have something to fall back on if times get rough.
I agree completely that the intuition you're talking about is one that needs to be addressed. As I tried to convey, people who normally advocate decentralization don't necessarily need to rely on the idea that individuals would voluntarily take care of the poor on their own. They could point out that because people agree with that intuition, they would want to form groups to ensure that instances of extreme need would be addressed. For example, they might form an organization which would be obligated by its charter to offer certain kinds of help to anyone satisfying certain criteria. So if you saw someone starving on the street, you could call the organization, and they would have to come help. That's certainly possible.
The advocate of decentralization needs only point out that there is no single way that these kinds of problems need to be addressed. So a single, centrally planned solution seems like it would lack any inherent moral justification. That being said, it could be that one could justify a sort of centralized solution on other grounds besides rationalism about policymaking. The above account represents that sort of justification. But of course, the voluntary association idea does not necessarily address the problem of public goods, and that objection needs to be discussed.
Ultimately, I'm not trying to argue for or against any particular conception of what a decentralized solution would or should look like. The point I'm trying to make here is that this is an area of study that has been relatively neglected in the mainstream, and it would be cool to work on bringing more attention to it.
You are certainly right, it does need further study.
One question I have about an anarchial society is how disputes would be resolved if the two parties could not agree on a specific court. I have read some of Chaos theory, which helped address some of these issues, but I am still in the dark on a few things. Mostly, how a private court system would work. The PDA's I am fairly comfortable with, but the courts is something that I am unsure of.
Imagine someone is murdered. The victim's PDA is fairly sure of the murderer, but needs testimony from several witnesses and would most likely have to search the victim's residence for additional evidence. First, how could the PDA compell testimony? If people did not wish to testify, they certainly could not be forced to. Paying for testimony would surely make the testimony impartial and therefore useless. I understand that some sort of agreement to testify could be drawn up in PDA's contracts, but surely not all PDA's would have such clauses. Second, the issue of searching and seizing. With no central body to give authority for such actions, how would they come about? Could a PDA break into a supposed murderer's residence to bring him to justice, which would be an obvious violation of his rights? Then what about courts? What if two people simply cannot come to an agreement on the court they shall use? Would a third party decide? Who would pick the third party?
Questions such as these are what keep me skeptical about such a system, though I would very much enjoy hearing a rational answer (the only answer I got on other forums was that I am a statist and the state does a terrible job with justice, which was not at all the point of my argument. I want to know how this system would work, not that our system does not. I am well aware of this fact.)
I'm not sure that your question has as simple of an answer as you might like. I would point out that you've already smuggled in one particular conception about how a decentralized system of justice would look by making reference to private defense agencies, and I'm not sure that's the only possible way that a decentralized system might operate. If you're really interested in exploring this subject, you might be interested in Ed Stringham's book, Anarchy and the Law, and Bruce Benson's book, The Enterprise of Law. I haven't read either, but they come very highly recommended.
I am in the process of listening to A New Liberty, perhaps I will check out these other books afterwards.
Another major question for me is the actual possiblity of a system such as this actually coming to be.
Well I generally think that governments do get their power from the people. If enough people come to believe that decentralization is desirable, then I would imagine we'll likely see it become less and less practicable for central authorities to act in opposition to that opinion. After all, for its faults, the government is generally staffed by pretty well-intentioned, upstanding people. Many of them want to do good (at least I see no reason to think otherwise), but they simply accept ideas which are different than ours and, I think, mistaken. Until those bad ideas are supplanted by better ones, I don't think there's really much chance of success for our movement (the Agorists disagree; they have a very different idea about how a decentralized system can be achieved, and that's okay too). So for my part, my goal will be to fight in the war of ideas.
As far as how to do that, I'm sure there are eleven opinions for every ten decentralists. I'm currently trying to put together a group of people interested in trying to bring questions relating to decentralization into the mainstream discussion. There's LvMI, FEE, FFF, PERC, FREE, the Cato Institute, the Independent Institute, the Molinari Institute, the Fraser Institute, etc. etc. etc. Then on a completely different tack there's the Libertarian Party, and on another completely different tack there's the Agorists. Everyone's doing what they think they should be doing, and no one's really in a position to know what's going to end up being the most effective.
But do you see how that's a completely different question than whether we should actually be trying to implement these ideas at all? Once we can comfortably say that the only thing left to do is figure out how we're going to make it happen, it seems like the battle's already been won.
Very true. But like your 4th point says, people must be convinced the poor would atleast not be worse off under such a system. They would be worried about the disabled man who cannot find work through no fault of his own. Clearly he has trouble in our society, but how could we guarantee he would not be worse off? In all likelihood he would be better off, given extra work opporunities and the fact that without taxes people would have more money to donate to charity, but with no provider of last resort it does leave the future uncertain for these people. Not that that would be such a bad thing, as it would most likely increase their incentive to work hard, but that is not what the majority of this country wants to hear.
The problem as I see it, is that people would get involved if there was someone to lead them, or to participate with them. Telling people, "Agorism for the w1n" and then sending them back home isn't going to get it done. They have no idea how to start, how to approach others etc.
If Agorists think the issue is that people can't understand it, or why it is to their benefit, well that's wrong.
I think people don't know where to begin, and where to get advice, support etc from. There are no examples to follow, no "fraternity of agorism".
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
You don't seem to understand agorism, so you end up making what amount to straw man arguments against it.
For example:
Telling people, "Agorism for the w1n" and then sending them back home
This demonstrates a total misunderstanding on your part about what agorism is or what agorists advocate. It's not an accurate description about what any agorist actually does. It's a dumb argument.
There are no examples to follow, no "fraternity of agorism".
What do you mean there are no examples to follow? There are no examples of people defying state laws and getting away with it? Bullshit! You argue against agorism as if it involves zero cooperation between people, which is silly. Seriously, read the material already. I'm tired of your non-sequitors.
Thank you for making my point. In lieu of building, educating and promoting Agorism, you choose to ...
Brainpolice:What do you mean there are no examples to follow? There are no examples of people defying state laws and getting away with it? Bullshit! You argue against agorism as if it involves zero cooperation between people, which is silly. Seriously, read the material already. I'm tired of your non-sequitors.
I have read the material. You are behaving within the profile of attacking instead of building bridges of understanding.
I am practicing counter-economics in a serious manner. I've always been a self-starter. I don't wait for someone to lead.
But many people do. Will you be the one to help them? Or will you attack and speak to them in a condescending manner? Will your arrogance get in the way of progress? Or can you set aside your manifestations of insecurity long enough to do something in your own rational best interest?
Btw, if you are tired of my non-sequitors, then please apply your energy in another direction. Perhaps one day you will be able to achieve something tangible.
"You are behaving within the profile of attacking instead of building bridges of understanding."
Thank you Liberty Student. This seems to be the majority of responses I get on these forums as well. Why can we not have intelligent discussion minus the condescending attitude?
rixross:Thank you Liberty Student. This seems to be the majority of responses I get on these forums as well. Why can we not have intelligent discussion minus the condescending attitude?
Well, you and I have been part of the problem. Our responses are not always with the best intentions.
I'm going to try and change that from my end.
Ditto. Ad Homimnd attacks are an easy trap to fall into, but I will try my best.
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