Anarcho-capitalism, why can't it work? - Page 43

On September 11 2010 09:45 Yurebis wrote:


Vis-a-vis, it can't be the case that one central ruler offers a more stable jurisdiction than as many judges as people want to pay. For the law to change in the former, you only have to persuade a few men; for the latter, tens of thousands, at the very least.

And the question of whether people can be easily persuaded to support mass murder is one of human nature - even if it is the case, then man is doomed to kill itself no matter what - more so with the help of the state I will claim of course. Peace is generally more popular these days I feel.

On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote:


Why do you insist on naming everything that is not an-cap 'centrally planned'? Do you believe that a functioning liberal democracy (not the US) is some sort of conspiracy?
One central ruler? I am not defending dictatorships, but defending liberal democracies - the reasonable state, the trias politica, constitutional rights.

On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote:
In a democracy, laws are subject change by the legislature, which is in turn subject to the whim of the popular vote. However, the representatives in the legislature are devoted full-time to weighing the consequences of their decisions, while in an ancap, with a mass vote, this oversight would be missed. Furthermore, in a liberal democracy, the trias politica defends the judiciary from influence from the legislature. These kinds of safe-gaurds are non-existent in any anarchy. As you put it, if tens of thousands (I assume this means a majority) believe the law should be changed, it shall. This opens the way to the oppression of the majority, which in turn leads to civil strife.

On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote:
I'd also like to call you out on ignoring many points, not only in my post, but in the entire thread.

You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?

On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote:
You also do not adress any of the points I make about the fragility of the freedom of speech and laws against discrimination that exists in an ancap, and ignore my question about the importance of economic interests in ancap law.

On September 12 2010 10:30 Yurebis wrote:


In the scope of the calculation problem, it is no better.

On September 12 2010 10:30 Yurebis wrote:

So
citizens -> voting every 4 years -> representatives -> law -> courts and enforcement
is more responsive and safer than
people <-> courts and enforcement <-> law
?

On September 12 2010 10:30 Yurebis wrote:


Peace is popular because it's inherent in our evolutionary biology to be cooperative towards our own species. And yes, it is an illogical argument to say that man overall is evil, yet man in these arbitrary settings is going to behave perfectly as a piece of paper prescribes (constitution). I don't care much about your empirical evidence, first because it doesn't matter that a liberal democracy has or has not fought another, when liberal democracies have waged war against any third world country it could, has bases all over the planet, expropriating 50% of the GDP, incarcerating victimless crime offenders, killing millions of people, etc. etc. etc. It is hardly proper to pretend liberal democracies are the angels of the world.

Second, because you have not a-priori exposed why should we believe such a thing. No one in this thread at least has logically demonstrated what are the incentives for a man in the state to do a better job at doing what their voters want, than a man in the market doing what their customers want; what better mechanisms there are; which leads me to believe there isn't anything better to brag about.

On September 12 2010 10:30 Yurebis wrote:

1- What laws exactly? Demonstrate a hypothetical
2- How do you know if they would or would not exist
3- Why do you think such laws are necessary, and why should everyone else care

Economic interests happens in liberal democracies as well, thats what corruption is called. And it's much easier to do when law and enforcement are monopolized and centralized. The way to diminish corruption is not to make up arbitrarily complicated schemes that eventually will be broken by lobbyists and politicians, it is to abolish political power and resolve everything through free market entry (also known as competition), allowing better lawmakers and enforcers to leave and enter unrestrained by an x year election cycle. Politicians are necessarily more unresponsive to demand and supply (for better politicians) compared to a noncoercive system.

On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote:


I agree that socialism is far from ideal - I too believe that the market is necessary for our wealth, however, I believe there are many roles for a state to fullfill to ensure a stable, reasonable market. Institutions that temper inflation, environmental laws, social policy. You do not convince me with an argument against socialism, because you use them against liberal democratic, mixed economies.

You can present some fables about how the market can handle every task, but the truth is that you will never find a majority of economists, let alone voters, willing to cede every single responsibility to the market.

On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote:

Again you do not adress my points, and pose a question instead. Yes, I believe it is safer. Responsive, no, that much is clear from the above. Why must I point this out?
Representatives, in a functioning democracy, such as North-West European countries, have integrity, act in a trustworthy way, and make better decisions than some sort of mob rule that you would prefer. I explained earlier how sentiment leads to a dictatorship - do you not realize how fragile a system is when the whim of the majority can ruin it?

On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote:


In an earlier post you state that genocide happens because it lies in human nature, now you say peace is human nature. I like to see peace as the result of a working system - and you have not made clear to me how an ancap will gaurantee peace. Will people be more cooperative when they have to fight for every penny, when differences between rich and poor become unbridgeable divides instead of gaps?

On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote:
As I have stated many times, I am talking about functioning democracies - the dirty wars the US has fought or supported over the globe are not my idea of a functioning democracy. Europe has generally been at peace since WW2, with military actions being done multilaterally through organizations such as NATO or the UN. How can you state that this does not matter? Europe is experiencing it's longest peace since the Pax Romana, and with a few US-led exceptions, has not committed any war-crimes in other nations.

Regarding the second, I believe this comparison is moot, because you have not provided a convincing argument showing that consolidation and corporate government will not come to exist. The market will always consolidate and some form of rulership will start to exist. Why would a monopolist do a better job than a representative in a democracy?



1 - The freedom of speech is obvious, I hope? Anti discrimination laws are, for example, that employers are not allowed to discriminate based on sex, race, or religion (though they still do, but if it can be proven one can go to court). Other laws: the freedom of religion or gay marriage.

On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote:
2 - These would not exist in an ancap unless they are profitable. Tell me if they are.

On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote:
3 - I believe such laws are the fundamentals of a tolerant, peaceful and wealthy nation. You should care about your freedom of speech. You should care about the freedom of religion. They do not have these rights in Somalia.

On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote:
I wonder what nations are the least corrupt worldwide? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index Seems like liberal democracies are at the top mate.

On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote:
Isn't corruption kind of linked to supply and demand? Your answer would be to totally let loose all control over it - mine would be to cut of supply. Make a transparent system, and corruption drops drastically. I'm afraid an ancap would be totally untransparent.

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:


What roles exactly?

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:

Uh, the will of the majority is, first of all, always going to be affecting a minority, no matter the system. If one billion people want you dead, government included or not, you're probably going to be killed. They can raise a huge bounty, they can hire hitmen, they can find out where you live and kill you with a pitchfork. That's just an observation of what one billion people are able to do if they so wished. But fear not. It is not the case that they may wish to do so, and the constititon, law, and moral systems, are not what keeps them back. No, it is their moral sentiment, it is their utilitarian evaluations of who's worth killing, who's a friend and who's a foe. The state reflects upon that demand for order, it does not provide it out of itself.

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:
the state is not necessary for order to exist

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:
the multiple fallacies of democracy being somehow mob-rule resistant (when the majority of the people elects the rulers.. funny that, I would think such a system would be the definition of mob-rule, but you wish to project it upon me! Okay. No insult taken.)

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:
The fragile system is the one dependent on goodwill rulers; dependent on a monopoly of power, that can be corrupted at any time. The least fragile is necessarily the most dissipated, and there's no more decentralization than the lowest common denominator.

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:


You seem to be under the illusion that the state is an equalizer of sorts, and the ultimate guarantee against violence. Well, the soviet union also guaranteed its people against starvation, guess what happened...

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:
There are no guarantees in any system. Men can and have genocided in the past. But that's not the point. You have to see the merits in the arguments, and try to imagine which one best deters violence, not the one who's loudest in its assertions. I think disasters like these happen less when the men who do it are not subsidized in their powers through coercion. Who is to be an arm for the state to aggress the population, if not the population itself? The way to minimize these large scale operations is to not allow rulers to get the means for free. Easy come, easy go.

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:
Freedom of speech is covered in private property theory... no court would deny such right.
Anti discrimination laws are an invasion of private property, and it's a completely misguided way to solve cultural "inefficiencies". Racism can naturally disappear over time as people notice it is better not to discriminate, thus lose customers and talented employees, than discriminate and lose opportunities due to cultural superstition.
Superstitions are self-correcting period. Do we need laws against people avoiding black cats, or avoiding walking under ladders? Not really
Freedom of religion... again, forcing one to practice anything is a violation of property... and gay marriage is only relevant insofar as the state approves such relation (again, irrelevant since there would be no state to dictate which relations are marital or not, people can have different definitions and assemble in whatever way is voluntary)

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:

Disputes are always profitable to solve... the laws you've given however are almost completely non-issues, without a defendant or plaintiff; or otherwise private property violations, in which case they will be handled just as well if not better...

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:

Uh... source?

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:

Perception = reality? tee hee

On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote:

By cutting supply, you should have meant limiting the power of the coercive monopoly aka state... which is my answer (to the fullest conclusion that it must be dissolved). Yours is just trying to tame the untameable beast, or put more cameras around it, have more tamers inside the cage (which eventually become beasts themselves or just rather die), which isn't addressing the question that is whether we even need the beast at all.

Organizations are as transparent as people tolerate them to be. In the case of the state, it has to be tolerable enough so there aren't revolts or revolutions against it; in the case of for-profit institution, it has to be more tolerable than the competitors to gain an edge. It's hardly easy to fool a million people into paying for something they don't know what does, or haven't compared to other sellers. The state gets away with being less transparent because there's no state to compare it to, within the same cultural context. If you understand anything about monopolies (even the perverted mainstream version), you should understand why a monopoly can get away with being more secretive...

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:


Wow, way to skip over my post. I stated the answer to your question literally in that post - I see the state as necessary to administer a certain degree of macroeconomic policy (like tempering inflation), to protect the environment (air can not be owned), and to have some social policy. In what degree this all should happen is up for debate, but anyone would agree the market by itself cannot fulfill these roles.

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:

If one billion people want me dead for a unlawful reason, it is my right to be protected by the state. This is what we call civilization. In an ancap, you'd better not be different - if people want to kill you, they will.

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:

No, lets relive militias and vigilante justice!!

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:

Direct democracy =/= liberal/constitutional democracy.
Have you ever read Aristotle?

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:

Do you truly believe that an ancap will exist for a long time? When power is consolidated - be it by a criminal organization, a powerful corporation, or by citizens who feel the need to organize - we can't even call it an anarchy any more, can we? What stops this from happening? If the people move to create a political union, are they free to do so? Do you truly believe that everyone (or even a majority!!) would agree to your system?

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:
This is what I mean by fragile - even if your system would work, it still runs the risk of being undone by itself.

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:


The state is an equalizer insofar as the unlimited market is a divider. And yes, liberal democracies are the most peaceful nations around the globe. Take a look at another thread in general: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=151310 . Pretty sure stateless somalia is at the bottom there, and evil socialist scandinavia at the top. Btw, why do you guys always come up with socialism or the USSR, when we talk about democracies. Socialism is a totalitarian system, far from anything I support.

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:


And again, look at the facts - liberal democracies are peaceful. This isn't a 'loud assertion' , it's simply the truth. Rulers do not have unlimited power in these states, and will not get it, because mob rule is impossible. There are no safegaurds against a group of people getting power and abusing it in an ancap..

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:


'Disappear over time' ... you believe that every problem, however horrible, should be left alone, because in time it will be solved? Sure, racism will slowly vanish, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored..
I do like your idea of marriage though, it is quite appealing - but would everyone agree to it? Would a majority think this to be a good idea? Mob rule undermines your system again.

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:

Pretty vague answer there mate - disputes often profit one of the parties involved.

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:

What do you need a source for? That somalia has no freedom of religion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbul_Shabaab

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:

I really don't get your point. Do you have objective statistics about corruption? Can you assert that these nations are corrupt? Cheap shot and a dodge imo.

On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote:


Why is the state an untameable beast? If it even is a beast, at least it is one, and can be observed, and taught to not shit on the carpet - you would rather create an entire menagerie of smaller animals that will soon fill your house with turds.

I don't share your trust in the consumer - led on by trends, quantity over quality, lazy in general. For the common consumer to keep an eye on the mass of businesses (if they don't consolidate and form power blocs, that is), seems unrealistic. Economic theory ignores the limits of the common man.

On September 14 2010 06:55 Gaga wrote:
i dindt read the thread but i have to add my thoughts in a few words..

you should define "work" ..

a system that is just controlled by the survival of the fittest would reduce humans to animals again.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:


The bureaucrats who can deliver you such damned 'necessary' services... they're not going to disappear. They're not angels either, nor super heroes - their abilities aren't super powers activated by the power of the constitution. No, they're just men offering services.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
there's nothing nothing stopping people from choosing the latter for any reason.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
Obligatory Austrian economics plug - but interest rates mean something, they're not just a convenient variable that you can adjust with no consequences. It is the price on time, on opportunity cost. You forcibly change that, and you have forcibly changed the rate at which people save, invest, loan, consume, to artificial levels. They save less when otherwise they'd save more, invest more in things that wouldn't be invested, loan more, consume more, leading to both an unsustainable boom, where both consumption and investment is up; and a bust once the malinvestments give no return and go bust... You can search for the 'Austrian business cycle theory' for more detail if you want.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
Protecting the environment... thinking in a dispute resolution kind of way, who's the plaintiff? Can you sue someone from misusing a natural resource? Hm I don't think so, it would come into question why do you feel you have a greater claim over a resource you don't even use, than those who are trying to profit off it. If at any point their practices come to afflict you however, I have no question that you'd be able to take it to court, and air pollution issues can be resolved that way...

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

The state can't even protect you from a downtown thug, much less a billion people!
The point is that there is no guarantee in any system, you have to see the merits and incentives for each. Start with the courts, monopolized judges v. competitive judges, then monopolized lawmakers v. competing lawmakers, then monopolized cops v. competing cops...

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

How about let's stop saying "let's". You do what you want, I do what I want, and if it so happens that we're both cooperative human beings, and not thugs trying to force one another into practicing or paying for X, then we will find a way to defend ourselves efficiently, we will find agreeable law codes, and we will settle disputes in court. We deal with criminals for the criminals they are, for their noncooperation with law and invasions of private property; not by assuming that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

Is the majority not electing its representatives by majority vote? Can't those representatives change or interpret the constitution in any manner that is popular?

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
I hate to agree with GWB (not for the same reasons of course), but "the constitution is just a piece of paper"... politicians only have a loose obligation in following it; in the end, it's only the "social contract" that matters. If they can kidnap civilians and put them in detention camps (i.e. asian americans held captive during WWII), and the rest of society be fine with it, then they can, and no lines on a piece of paper is going to stop them.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

Anyone can create any group they want, they just can't force people in. There could be insurance companies for example that ascribed to certain law codes, and required its members to be contractually obligated to do the same - or be penalized with higher premiums and penalties. Like reckless drivers have to pay more to insurance, because the insurance companies are managing their liability for them, so will violent citizens have to pay more "defense insurance".

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
People without insurance may find it harder to get jobs, buy contractual utility services, or even food at the store, if those businesses require from them some insurance that they're not trouble-makers.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
more efficiently at that, since the localities' and client's preferences on risk management are maximized (everyone only pays as much as they want to, and require from each other as much as they want to too), when otherwise they'd have to abide by arbitrary federal and state legislation, that always provide either too much or too little insurance, or rather, too much or too little assurance, protection and enforcement.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
Insurance companies will also know how to best address the risks of itself becoming too big for its customers,

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
Separation of powers doesn't happen today because the state is good willed either, it happens because the bloodthirsty revolutionaries of the past required such arbitrary assurances - and so any type of assurance that is demanded can be supplied voluntarily too...

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
I've drawn this comparison before ("people <-> courts and enforcement <-> law" v. "citizens -> voting every 4 years -> representatives -> law -> courts and enforcement") but I didn't elaborate, I was waiting to see if you'd understand any of it in your own but I guess I can only fault myself.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
The market mechanisms are more versatile in checking the profitable activities of a company, than democratic systems are in keeping representatives honest.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
There is far more response and flexibility in constant market exchanges, than elections every x years, or sending letters to representatives pleading them to do what you want (without contractual obligation, which is a sad joke - the citizen has a "social contract" to obey, one that he didn't even sign, but the representative has no contract to do what he promised to do, nor is he even required to follow the constitution he made an oath to respect). From the consumer<->business relation, any type of arrangement can occur, including the very same inefficient voting scheme, if the customers so desired: they could all pay equal premiums to an insurance company, and the company gives every member and equal vote in what law codes, courts, and PDAs to follow for the year. It is a silly idea of course, as people would be bearing the risk costs of others, but it could be done. I rather support consumer <-> insurance company -> PDAs/courts/laws, but there's an infinite number of business models possible... and companies everywhere would be competing to deliver the most reliable, efficient one.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

There's always a risk for anything... the question should be how to best minimize them.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

Because it's no different in class... morally and economically, just different in degree.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
Some paper rated Somalia dead last. What does that prove? That willing slaves make for a more peaceful society? Would it rate the US in times of revolutionary war low, because the british were attacking? What does that prove? What does it define peace as? It is key in the interpretation of peace, to rank something high or low, so the whole evaluation is arbitrary.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

Define peace.
Also, define abuse of power. Bonus points if you define power.
I would do it, but I want to see what you think the words you're using mean first.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

Problems should be left alone? Yes, if by left alone you mean the state shouldn't force it's solution upon it. I believe problems should be dealt with in the most efficient manner that the plaintiff and defendant can settle with. Like healthcare is better delivered in a doctor-patient relationship, no arbitrary, centrally planned scheme will ever solve what it promises to fix. Because of the information problem. Because of the incentive problem. Because it brings ever-increasingly more problems.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

If by profit you mean, one can subjectively get away with more satisfaction than what he expected by engaging in the activity, then yes, they certainly can, but the goal of arbitration is to make both parties happy, not just one. Courts are to be respected on their impartiality and strictness to the rule of law; every time it is biased in its decision, its reputation is directly impaired, and so it will lose clients...

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
If by profit you mean, some evil guy can pay off multiple courts to shut them up and profit off what would be illegal activities, then that guy should be happy for living in a state for he can already to so more easily, because it's cheaper to corrupt a single, coercively monopolized judge/court, as opposed to multiple competing ones. It is also easier to corrupt the law code when all it takes is a few senators to lobby it for you.

Remember, vis-a-vis...

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

Can you assert that they aren't corrupt?
It's a perception index. A popularity context, on which people have the greatest post-purchase rationalization, not necessarily which have the best 'product'. That isn't even what's being attempted to be measured, let alone proving anything...
I'm not an empiricist at any rate, I dwell in empiricism only for demonstrative purposes, and in a responsive manner to other's empirical assertions.

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:

Expanding on the cage analogy, it isn't fit to describe the market, because there is no public domain, cage, in which everyone is responsible for or lives in (and therefore creates a tragedy of the commons type of situation). Each person makes their cages as they want to, and they can share them as they want to. They can put a cage inside a cage, interconnected cages, interlocked cages, they can make up all sorts of separations of powers that they find fit - the only difference being, that they can't legitimately drag people into their cages...

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
If man as a customer can't even bother analyzing what they're spending their money on (which is wrong, they do as much as they want to; people go to multiple dealers to find the best car car, spend hours picking the best plasma TV...), when they supposedly have the greatest amount of interest invested into such choice, then how can the voter be bothered into voting for the best candidate, a choice which affects others much more than himself? If man can't decide what's best for himself, then what of choosing for others?

On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote:
As far as generalities go, again, you have to, have to have to have to, think of the incentives involved. There are far less incentives for one to vote right, than for one to hire the right lawyer, or bodyguard. To say that people wouldn't care which insurance company to subscribe to, or which cops to hire, and the worst, most corrupt institutions would end up being heavily funded, is equivalent to saying people will buy $5000 crappy plasma tvs that can't be wired into, or cars that run 10 miles then break down on the way up a steep hill, and then all cars and tvs will be crap. It's just not true. As much thought is put in the process as one has to gain or lose. People will have everything to lose, investing in a defense agency that is likely to backstab them, so it's an even greater consideration than spending $5000 on a device that doesn't work - it's speding $5000 on a device that can kill you. As worried as you are, people will be, and they will make sure appropriate contracts, assurances, insurances are made, to minimize that risk, as best as they can...

The state minimizes the risk of the emergence of a coercive monopoly of aggression by being a coercive monopoly of aggression itself... which is contradictory to say the least, but even if you were fine with it, it's still the case that socializing these decisions creates the type of moral hazard that makes people irresponsible. If their can only vote between democan or republicrat, how much of a conscious effort goes into the choice? What are the costs? What are the benefits? That's what a socialized system does...

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:
I'm going to skip over parts of your post and adress the points.



I never said that they were superheroes. I'm saying that civil responsibility is very real in a working democratic system. I've asserted that many things are better off without a profit motive, and to keep the state honest, I believe that corruption and other problems can be minimized by structuring the system well. This is what I mean with constitution - things like the trias politica and political accountability.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


See this is the problem - Even if I did believe that you are right about printed money being counterfeit and whatnot, I'd still assert that there is nothing stopping the formation of other currencies. We then get some sort of competition between currencies, and the stronger will win - guess what happened to gold? You would assert that this cannot happen without a state to intervene, but what is a state but a powerful group, and what kind of group could create a currency? Power will always be centralized.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


I'm not ignorant to economics, so you don't need to lecture me. I'm sure the central bankers who change interest rates to coincide with economic circumstances aren't ignorant either. Leave it to a scattering of bankers to adjust their own interest rates, and soon we will see one outcome - because of runaway competition many will go bust, and the strong survive, eventually in cycles this will result in a consolidation of power to a scale where banks will cooperate, and voila - we have a central bank.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


So what happens if a factory is polluting your air? I guess you would propose a few options - move away, or judicial proceedings. Guess what? Both are not going to happen overnight, and both will cost you alot. Sure, you can pool resources with others, and hope you win in court - as there are no laws regulating air pollution, and it's up to an arbitrary view of pollution. People will need laws, and will create them, and eventually create a state.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


Competing judges and lawmakers sounds just wonderful. So if I were to go to court with someone, we'd have to have another argument about which law to use, which court to go to? Where does there exist order in this?

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


Guess what mate? We already have this system! Only a vocal minority believes taxation is stealing, even in batshit crazy america.
Guilty before proven innocent? What kind of fractured reality do you have? In what liberal democracy?

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

No. They will probably need 66% of the vote (and when one gets an progressive nation so unified, it's probably needed - we are not talking a 2-party system here) and assent from the head of state, who is independent. Bottom line, there are much more safegaurds.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

Luckily for you, the same would happen in your system. What would happen if your society got attacked like America in WW2? Privately owned defence would fight them off? And what if all asians were seen as a threat by the populace? Would they be spared?

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

Who decides this? Why should the citizen agree? And how will defence insurance work? Everyone wears some kind of flashy signal, protect me and not him?

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

Here starts the cycle of poverty that will entrap a large portion of the population. No job, cant get insurance because of money, in turn no job - and clearly no food either haha. Tough luck man.
And needing insurance to be trusted - what a breakdown of society.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

You believe that individual people will know exactly how much of every service they need? The state can at least consult experts (if everyone has to consult an expert, your efficient system goes down the drain) and create standards. If your neighbor skimps on fire insurance your house might get burned down.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:
You really do believe that the state is always wrong, no matter what?

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

I trust a powerful business (insurance companies are going to have alot of power in your system) to keep itself limited as much as you trust the state to keep limited.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

Separation of powers is very real in any European democracy.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

Oh but its not like that. In a liberal democracy is much more like = citizens <-> representatives <-> law -> courts and enforcement. Laws keep representatives in check, as do citizens in a transparent system.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

I disagree. I´ve explained the liberal democratic safegaurds already. Market mechanisms make companies like BP pursue cut-rate operations and then absolve themselves from the blame with a report designed to fight in courts. In an ancap, you´re going to have alot of fun fighting in courts. Sure, boycotts will hurt, but these have been done to other companies before and have not had long term implications, as long as the company is offering goods cheap.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


This is all based on the assumption that consumers can and will vote with their feet/wallet. I´m not so sure a consumer can get out of one of these business models you see as a replacement for law, quickly and without have losses. This system will be as least as inefficient - for a small town, how many companies do you see offering these services? A neighborhood? Would there indeed be a choice, the choice that keeps power away from business?

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


Whatever man. You keep offering forms of pseudo-government, but nothing keeps people from choosing to create some form of non-profit state.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

What? You think modern-day Denmark is fundamentally comparable to the USSR? You are delusional.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

It means the government has failed to protect it´s monopoly of force and a whole bunch of warlords are tromping around the country killing people in the name of Allah. It might have rated the US low, and the British low as well. Revolutions are by nature bloody.
Peace means nobody feels the need to fight a bloody insurrection. For example, failed state Russia is low on the list, partly due to fighting in Chechnya, while democratic Spain, although having seperatists in Basque and Catalonia, does not have to send their military to supress violence. This is because the state is respected by the general population.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

Allright, in short - Peace is when a nation or region is free from war, oppression and wanton violence.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:
Abuse of power is when a ruler uses his power to further his own ends, instead of those of the general population. Power in this situation is the ability of a ruler to influence a society.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

You mean, when your courts, influenced by the opinions of the majority, decide against racism. But the majority must first agree to it. And on the miniscule scale that these courts can exist in your system, I believe that it would be hard to keep up with the laws in every single neighborhood. In one neighborhood, dominated by blacks, a white man might need to pay twice, as his insurance would not be recognized, while in the next, black men would not be able to get a job. Love that society.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


But if those clients that are lost go to court against a client who still recognizes the former court, where would they handle their legal proceedings? I don´t see how this will be efficient, and fair.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:

I´d say its not easier, seeing as the price would be much higher - he would not have to pay off multiple law courts, just the one he is using, unless you assert that legal proceedings would be pursued in multiple courts at the same time!!

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


Well seeing as every single aspect of your system depends on a giant popularity contest - people choosing what they like the most and believe in the most, I thought that that list might be recognized as legit. Because if we were to grab 100 people who wanted to live in a corruption free nation, this research shows that they would probably choose a liberal democracy.

Your whole system is based on perception. Your point is invalid.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


They´ll find ways to keep people in there. People like stability and quickly get used to a certain situation, they won´t be hopping around as soon as one ´cage´ is perceived to be slightly better. Add vague contracts and commercial interest in there, and you create mini-states.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


Point granted. People will spend time choosing what seems best. But people believed toyota´s to be of a high safety quality, and suddenly they are falling apart on the road. This would be an even bigger problem in an ancap, when there are no safety gaurantees (or, different ones from the one insurance to the next).

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:


I told you, I support liberal democracies, not the perverted corporate ´democracy´ in the US. There is much more transparency in northern European countries.

On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote:
The biggest problem with your argument is that for every problem, there are multiple choices. I don´t believe this is true at all. Even if everything was left over to the market, do you really believe there would be multiple police forces to choose from in a given neighborhood? And if you were to travel, would that force protect you all the way? Small scale might be good for competition, but unpractical in the long run. Same goes for defense - if there is a strong agressor, you´re not going to have much choice about what defence to pick, there will not be 10 defense agencies, all strong enough to handle the task, lined up..

On September 14 2010 09:11 Yurebis wrote:

Take "work" to mean making a society which is at least as desirable as the one that currently is.
And systems don't change human nature, they change the incentives and private property theories. Anarcho-capitalism just takes the concept of private property to its fullest extent, calling out the state for its unjustified invasion of such.

Animals don't have a concept of private property, and therefore can't solve control disputes civilly. I would rather call the democratic process a reduction to animal instincts, because everyone gains and equal opportunity to exploit another's property through redistributing welfare, subsidies, regulations, at the cost of a 'free' vote - when they would have to bear the full costs of implementing such schemes otherwise. The government actually facilitates stealing and herd behavior.

On September 15 2010 02:48 Gaga wrote:


without a state your private property would only belonge to you if you are strong enough to defend it from someone wo wants to take it from you. (and there will be always people/corporations who will want to get what you have... man behaves like that)

there would be a constant fight about your private property without a state securing your private property... not what i would call a desirable society.... if you are weak you loose.

there would probably arise some sort of social system where the people of that system will be granted some rights of property again ... but thats just again a system of a state and not anarchie.

On August 29 2010 08:09 Krikkitone wrote:
TLDR it won't work because there is no way of ensuring that those who violently resist violent coercion will not attempt to perform violent coercion. (resistance is not always easier than coercion). So limited states are better than anarchy because anarchy leads to unlimited states.

For anarcho capitalism to work then everyone capable of successfully defending themselves has to be willing to not oppress others.

On September 15 2010 04:54 Gaga wrote:
So if you cant pay for your security you are doomed ?

doesn't change the fact that this creates a system where the strong completely dominate the weak. (animal behaviour)

-> not desireable in my opinion.

(my english isnt very good so granted may be the wrong word ... you don't have to explain what your understanding of private property is)

On September 15 2010 02:48 Gaga wrote:



without a state your private property would only belonge to you if you are strong enough to defend it from someone wo wants to take it from you. (and there will be always people/corporations who will want to get what you have... man behaves like that)

there would be a constant fight about your private property without a state securing your private property... not what i would call a desirable society.... if you are weak you loose.

there would probably arise some sort of social system where the people of that system will be granted some rights of property again ... but thats just again a system of a state and not anarchie.

You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?

On September 15 2010 04:54 Gaga wrote:
So if you cant pay for your security you are doomed ?

doesn't change the fact that this creates a system where the strong completely dominate the weak. (animal behaviour)

-> not desireable in my opinion.

(my english isnt very good so granted may be the wrong word ... you don't have to explain what your understanding of private property is)

On September 15 2010 05:06 Hasudk wrote:
I'm curious about this, since you have so many thoughts about the state, what is your definition of a state?
You might have already posted it earlier, and if so, then my bad. But if you haven't posted it yet, then I would really like to know how you define it. It is of course a complicated question, but important none the less.