Political Theory

Re: The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

Autolykos — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:37:11 GMT

Centinel:

People will use coercion if they expect to benefit from it. They don't necessarily follow these bullet points.-- eliotn

Economic profit seeking actors will always use coercion under the following conditions:

peaceful exchange is not possible

peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of force to acquire the resource

acquisition of the resource by coercive means results in a net gain in profit

To do otherwise under these conditions would be irrational for an economic profit seeking actor.

Note that the tenets outlined above do not represent irrational actors or those societal actors who place subjective moral value judgments ahead of economic profit.

I'm going to repost my counter-argument to this from another thread:

It seems that the first proposition is really just a sub-case of the second proposition. However, there can be no objectivity attributed to the phrase "more costly". Whether a person thinks peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force is up to him - that is, it's his subjective judgement. The same applies to the third proposition. So ~~Retopper's~~ Centinel's position can be restated as the following: at all times, there exists at least one person and at least one resource for which 1) the person considers peaceful exchange to be more costly than the use of physical force to take the resource, and 2) the person's perceived/expected benefits from possessing the resource exceed the perceived/expected costs of acquiring it by using physical force.

The only problem I have with about the above is that it's impossible to prove that at least one such person and resource exist at all times. If one simply treats the proposition as a premise, however, proof is unnecessary. Even then, however, it's impossible to predict just which people and which resources the proposition holds true for at any given time.

Essentially, ~~Retopper's~~ Centinel's argument is that, because men aren't angels (or, at the very least, not all men are angels), a monopoly over the legitimate use of coercion is necessary. I fail to see how this follows. As I've stated before, I think coercion (here defined as "the use or threat of violence") is sometimes legitimate. However, that in no way means to me that such legitimate coercion must be monopolized - as it's done, by definition, by the state.

Re: The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

Autolykos — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:04:01 GMT

Centinel:

This is a non sequitor. If some good is required, then the amount of that good may or may not be critical. What do you mean by level, and how can the "level" be determined? -- eliotn

Defense expands from one tank to two tanks -- that represents an increase in the level of security.

Moreover, with this increase, the likelihood of predation is decreased.

In sum, your assertion that expanded defense DOES NOT reduce the likelihood of predation is manifestly illogical thinking.

Certainly, then, you can explain exactly how much the increase in the level of security is, and exactly how much the likelihood of predation is decreased, by expanding from one tank to two tanks. Simply saying that doing so increases the level of security and decreases the likelihood of predation means nothing, as those are "increase" and "decrease" are quantitative terms.

Re: The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

eliotn — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:40:47 GMT

Moreover, supporting secession doesn’t mean someone is an anarchist – indeed, this is another ridiculous strawman argument.

Hence.....

Support for unlimited secession doesn't make one an anarchist, duh. "

Unless you limit succession to a particular level, say, that a state can break away but not a county. Although this begs the question of why a state but why not a smaller locality like a county.

The point of this argument is that if you support the right of individuals to succeed from the state, in effect you would not be opposed to anarchism, if people wanted to break away from the state. You might have an opinon that it would be foolish for people to seccede like that, if thats what you mean

"Amusingly, you have just parroted a fallacy frequently issued by brain dead statists. Namely, that government is the only entity that can fund large scale enterprises."

Strawman. The argument was that it would be costly for a PDA to do war, not that it couldn't have a large scale enterprise. You need to establish that large scale enterprise as a PDA implies the ability to wage war.

" Indeed, there is no logical, empirical, or factual argument that says free market enterprises like a private military agency cannot grow as large as a statist military."

This misses the point. The point is not how big the military can grow, but how costly the warring will be. The argument is that a state can pass the costs onto a third party, a PDA can't.

Re: The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

eliotn — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:20:51 GMT

Anarchists are of the deluded opinion that ancap society would be peaceful when nothing could be further from the truth for the following reasons:

1) security is required in ancap society -- indeed no ancap denies this fact."

Actually, there exist scenarios where security is not required. A person who is permanently outside of contact of other people is without government, yet he has no need of security because he will not be attacked by other men. Also, in an ancap society, people may decide to not purchace anything that falls under security. By "security is required" do you mean that some people must have goods to secure themselves, or everyone must have goods to secure themselves, or something else. Also, many different goods can fall under the definition of security, can you describe exactly what you mean by security?

"2) if security is required in ancap society then the level of security is critical, so logically ...."

This is a non sequitor. If some good is required, then the amount of that good may or may not be critical. What do you mean by level, and how can the "level" be determined?

a decrease in the level or funding of security increases the likelihood of predation
an increase in the level of security decreases the likelihood of precation.
hence, the economic profitability of a given resource (whether land, capital, labor, et al) will determine the level of security and hence the risk of attack

First two bullet points aren't necessarily true, there could be no change in the likelihood. The third bullet point is another assertion that you haven't proven. In actuality, people determine how they will be secure, which isn't always based on the economic profitability of their resources.

"3) profit seeking actors in society will use armed force to acquire valued resources under the following conditions:

peaceful exchange is not possible
peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of force to acquire the resource
acquisition of the resource by coercive means results in a net gain in profit"

People will use coercion if they expect to benefit from it. They don't necessarily follow these bullet points.

"4) society will generally approve of and benefit by coercive action to acquire valued resources if the following occurs:

efficient economic managers who acquire valued resources will better manage, market, utilize these resources thereby increasing growth and standards of living.
the citizenry will approve of this action if heretofore mismanaged and denied resources are made available to the markets thereby increasing supply, reducing scarcity and lowering prices"

Society cannot approve of a coercive action. Only people can. And why would people approve of the coercion from a claim of efficiency? What about morality?

"5) and the fallacy from ancaps that military defense agencies will not wage war because they directly bear the costs of war is debunked because they similarly benefit from the plunder of war."

It does not debunk this unless it can be shown that the plunder will outweigh the costs. The problem is that the costs will outweigh the benefits in an ancap society, because people will not trust the warring defense agencies.

"Hence, MDA will actually be more aggressive in utilizing their capital investment in warmaking equipment and personnel. Indeed, they will be forced to use these resources otherwise they will have been wasted. It is like spending billions on production machinery, yet not turning on the power in the manufacturing plant."

A good isn't necessarily wasted if it isn't used. Examples include the "just in case" gun in the back pocket, or "just in case" savings.

Re: The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

DarylLloydDavis — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:50:26 GMT

Centinel

I believe that an unfettered free market is the best framework to insure accountability. If a firm or individual engages in irresponsible behavior in the free market - their wealth and reputation are immediately in decline

I may be mistaken, but I thought that you supported state law enforcement as a necessary evil. Is it now only the "bottom line" that a company imperils, and not their freedom, when their cost/benefit analyses indicate that the private lawsuits that will result from a faulty safety device won't outpace the potential profits--so start production immediately? And has BP suffered much business loss, except what fines and clean-up costs the government imposed? Do you think that China can't sell any more toys because a few were poisonous? Tip of the iceberg without government sanctions.

Moreover, without a government safety net motivated by a quid pro quo scheme of votes for welfare, unemployment, and retirement benefits -- - citizens will exercise far more due diligence in making financial decisions. Hence, a decrease in government, results in an increase in personal freedoms and responsibilty, and a decrease in moral hazard which equates in a more dynamic, productive, and prosperous society.

That's why I support ending the safety net, or at least forcing a yearly national vote to continue it. And my system will be far less government--just not 60 to 0 government in two seconds.

By definition, corporations cannot make money in a free market unfettered by government cronism by screwing their customers.

It's not just their customers I'm thinking of. I'm also concerned about the preservation of a natural environment. But to each his own.

They become a problem when they form a duopoly with government for preferential tax and regulatory policies that enables them to gain market share and protection from competition

If they're willing to collude with government, then they're surely willing to collude with each other, especially after government steps out of the way.

I guarantee that every single line in the tax code is put there by self-interested politicians catering for votes and campaign contributions from special interests and uncompetitive firms.

No corporate or personal income taxes under my system.

it is based on who you know in Washington and how much your willing to bribe them in a quid pro quo scheme of votes and/or campaign contributions for tax and regulatory favors.

Your broken-record, anti-bribery dogma doesn't apply to a system without any campaigns but President--and he doesn't make regulations--which are strictly curtailed anyway--or exercise any power to tax.

ANd the most dangerous of all of the duopolies of government and special interests is that of direct democracy. Indeed, it is when 50.1% of the citizenry decide to plunder the remaining 49.9%

Once again, mine isn't that simple. But I'll face the decisions made by 51% more readily than by 535 Congress members.

Thanks for your input, Centinel. I see where you're coming from.

Re: The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

DarylLloydDavis — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:02:55 GMT

Centinel

you have not provided any data on how much revenue your government requires and how much revenue each of the following rents, royalties, fees and taxes would net

I'm afraid I'm not succeeding well at explaining the concept. I can't project in advance many of the revenue amounts, because they are entirely dependent upon the level of use of government services: If the military isn't drawn into conflict, for example, at the request of another government, then it will receive less revenue, but it will also require less revenue. The underlying idea is to discourage government intervention altogether, and to shrink government, as people come to covet the freedom to keep their own money, by handling their own problems, without the services of government--as they newly appreciate the direct relationship between a need for its intervention and the unwelcome financial requirements of larger government.

But the linchpin of this system of government financing is the following provision:

All fees shall reflect the actual duration and costs of use or misuse

No matter what government service is required, government is authorized to collect in exact proportion to the actual cost of providing the service--directly from those who make government intervention necessary. There can be no revenue shortfall, by definition. As an example:

1) A citizen gets stuck on the side of a mountain, climbing without appropriate gear: now he must pay for the emergency services, not taxpayers. (Personal accountability)

2) A woman sues a firm for one million dollars over a false accusation of fraud: now she must pay all court costs. (Personal accountability)

And, of course, I added the revenue from the labor of prisoners, who pay their own cost for imprisonment, courts, emergency services, restitution, etc.

Finally, the usage fee upon land-use affords the government the power to collect the actual costs to the government of protecting everyone's right to private property, either through the maintenance of the military, or through law enforcement. And the provision:

Any fiscal-program income deduction annually re-authorized by electoral initiative

This allows the government to continue to take out paycheck deductions to fund any social programs that the People decide every year to continue. Remember, my goal is to provide a teaching tool through direct democracy, a hands-on direct reminder of the need for personal accountability, and of the direct cost for a lack of it--not to simply impose a new system with new tax rates, and hope that the People are OK with far less government all at once.

Your formula for central governance is vague and not supported by specific data that shows how much money you expect to acquire and how much money you need to fund your bureaucracy.

My formula for decentralized governance is quite specific, much more so than our current Constitution. I take it, then, that you haven't read through the preview of it?

you have provided no explaination on how the bureaucrats that act as arbitrators for your many usage fees would be deterred from corruption and bribery. Indeed, with tremendous sources of money changing hands, do you discount the possibility of massive fraud and poltiical patronage ?

Centinel, we already have a fully-functioning, surprisingly-uncorrupt, system of revenue collection in place now. The same agencies that currently collect court fees, traffic ticket fines, property taxes, etc., will still be authorized to fund the government. The simple beauty of my plan is its relatively-seamless transition from what we have now. The only jarring change will be the abolition of Congress. And I'll repeat for the last time that my system places individual accountability at the forefront on every level, public and private. Each Secretary in every Adminstration is himself charged with the duties and responsibilities of his department, and may be voted out of his position every year. Even lesser bureaucrats, if appointed by an elected officer, may be fired by the People.

But I sense that I will be unable to persuade you of the merit of such a system, judging by your previous post. So be it. I'm sure you spent a great deal of time and effort on your Economic Bill of Rights; and you're understandably sticking with it. Frankly, I think we have different goals anyway. I'm primarily concerned with making people more moral, more personally accountable; I care much less about unleashing the full forces of a free market upon the world, letting private, profit-maximizing firms do as they wish, only paying for the consequences after the fact. I worry about a-hole CEO's just as much as I do corrupt bureaucrats. Human nature has to be changed--before any system has a chance.

Re: The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

Autolykos — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:34:46 GMT

Centinel:
For the 3rd time, I provided more than one quote for you to bastardize, including several in which Mises was supportive of government. Hence, you took one quote, bastardized it by cutting and pasting than anarchist version, and conveniently ignored the rest of the quotes I cited.

Then it should be no problem for you to explicitly show exactly how he bastardized the quotes you provided - instead of just asserting that he did.

Centinel:
In addition, you engaged in the incredibly fallacious argument that Mises is about as close to being an anarchist as you can get without being an anarchist ??!!!

Similarly, a warm corpse is about as close to being alive as you can get without being alive. Yet no rational, independent thinking, or objective source would consider one an anarchist and the other living.

You're actually supporting (if not proving) GotLucky's point. He wasn't arguing that Mises was an anarchist - he was arguing that Mises was as close as one can come to an anarchist without actually being one. Indeed, a warm corpse is about as close to being alive as one can get without being alive. The analogy holds.

Centinel:
With respect to Long - he is equally clueless.

Indeed, this anarchist concedes that cartels of armed force would form within ancap society, yet he makes the ridiculous claim that these cartels would be unstable because they are coercive.

This is absurd because every single nation-state in history has gained and maintained power by coercive monopoly and most have survived for decades, and some for centuries, without serious challenge.

Every single nation-state in history has gained and maintained monopoly power over coercion because the vast majority of its members approved of this. That doesn't mean everyone in that vast majority approved of everything "his" nation-state did with that monopoly, but he still approved of the principle itself.

Relying purely on force seems to typically breed resentment and resistance. Take a look at gangs - how much approval do they have from people who aren't themselves gang members? Governments are just gangs that most people approve of.

Re: The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

gotlucky — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:31:53 GMT

Centinel:

For the 3^rd time, I provided more than one quote for you to bastardize, including several in which Mises was supportive of government. Hence, you took one quote, bastardized it by cutting and pasting than anarchist version, and conveniently ignored the rest of the quotes I cited.

How's your blood pressure. It seems your brain might be hurting you too. I explained my methodology, and you have yet to attack my methodology. Well, technically you called it bastardized, but insulting without logical refutation really doesn't do much to help your case.

The burdon of proof rests with you at the moment. I have provided my case as to why I believe it is a mistake to read how Mises uses "anarchist" as "anarcho-capitalist". I demonstrated that at the time "anarchist" was a term used to refer to "communists". Providing more quotes using the terms involved does not a refutation make. What you need to do is provide sources where Mises either is specifically talking about "anarcho-capitalism" or where you can show that "anarchist" does not actually refer to "communist".

That is the kind of proof you need. I noticed how you ignored my Mark Twain example and have fallen back onto this corpse nonsense. Show me how my Mark Twain example is not accurate.

Until you show proof that I am mistaken about the term "anarchist" during that time period (or in how Mises actually used it), I will not engage you further in this particular point.

Centinel:

In addition, you engaged in the incredibly fallacious argument that Mises is about as close to being an anarchist as you can get without being an anarchist ??!!!

It is not an argument. It is a statement. I provided my reasoning before, but I will summarize it once more:

Mises supported unlimited secession.

So, while technically he is not an anarchist, the belief that people should be able to leave their government at any time is pretty damn close to anarchism. Hence the statement: Mises was about as close to being an anarchist without actually being one.

However, your entire refutation so far has rested on his use of the word "anarchist". I have responded to this above. So, you need to respond to the above before you can begin to call my statement fallacious.

Until you have done so, I will not engage you further on this point.

Centinel:

With respect to Long – he is equally clueless.

It is you who is clueless. You did not address any of his points, and even more impressive, you fail to address his most important at all! War is expensive. These PDAs do not have the tax base that a monopolist government has. It is extremely unlikely that a PDA would be able to secure the funds (peacefully and legally) required to make war against other PDAs.

You did not address this point.

I won't hold my breath.