|
Some of you might have seen my first blog post, Debate An Anarchist. This post will not contain any new info for anyone who read through my other blog in its entirety, but this aims to approach it from another angle. Instead of just opening the floor to every conceivable question about how this would work or that would work, the aim of this post is to present the argument for free market anarchism right off the bat and put the statists on the defensive. I don't intend for this thread to be a debate, although if it takes that course I will try and defend my position. But my goal is just to present the anarchists perspective, and organize the most important info from my first blog into one post so people can clearly see the case for anarchism.
If one believes that it is immoral and unjust to steal from someone who has committed no offense, then they are immediately on shakey moral ground to advocate for any form of government. Government, by its very definition, steals from its citizens under of taxation. Taxation is a euphamism for extortion. Many people don't see it this way because they've been taught since they were young that government is good and necessary, but when you strip off the fluff, taxation is extortion. If you don't pay your taxes, the government will put you in jail. It is no different then a robber putting a gun to your head and demanding your wallet. The other defining charicteristic of government is that it maintains its monopoly over any industry it deems fit to by forcing competitors out of business using coercion; if you try to compete with the governments monopoly, you will be thrown in jail, just like if you refuse to fund their monopoly. The nature of government, therefore, is oppressive.
Most people see these actions as being wrong in every other situation, such as when the mafia uses these practices, but they try to come up with excuses for why it is okay when government does it. The response generally given by statist apologists is that there are certain goods which can be catagorized as public goods. Generally, these are defined as goods which are non excludable- if one person buys said good, others around him will benefit from it without having to pay for it- and non rivalrous- one person consuming the good does not inhibit anyone else from consuming the good. Statists argue that with public goods, a 'free-rider problem' arises. The theory goes that everyone will wait for their neighbor to purchase said good, the result being that no one actually buys it and then everyone is worse off. Therefore, government must force people to pay for these goods collectively. I will turn to Hans Hermann Hoppe to tear this theory a new asshole:
"There is something seriously wrong with the thesis of public goods theorists that public goods
cannot be produced privately, but instead require state intervention. Clearly they
can be provided by markets. Furthermore, historical evidence shows us that all
of the so-called public goods that states now provide have at some time in the
past actually been provided by private entrepreneurs or even today are so provided
in one country or another. For example, the postal service was once private
almost everywhere; streets were privately financed and still are sometimes; even
the beloved lighthouses were originally the result of private enterpri~ep;r~iv ate
police forces, detectives, and arbitrators exist; and help for the sick, the poor,
the elderly, orphans, and widows has been a traditional concern of private charity
organizations. To say, then, that such things cannot be produced by a pure market
system is falsified by experience a hundredfold.
Apart from this, other difficulties arise when the public-private goods distinction
is used to decide what and what not to leave to the market. For instance,
what if the production of so-called public goods did not have positive but negative
consequences for other people, or if the consequences were positive for some
and negative for others? What if the neighbor whose house was saved from burning
by my fire brigade had wished (perhaps because he was overinsured) that
it had burned down; or my neighbors bate roses, or my fellow passengers find
the scent of my deodorant disgusting? In addition, changes in the technology can
change the character of a given good. For example, with the development of cable
TV a good that was formerly (seemingly) public has become private. And changes
in the laws of property-of the appropriation of property-can have the very same
effect of changing the public-private character of a good. The lighthouse, for
instance, is a public good only insofar as the sea is publicly (not privately) owned.
But if it were permitted to acquire pieces of the ocean as private property, as
it would be in a purely capitalist social order, then as the lighthouse shines over
only a limited territory, it would clearly become possible to exclude nonpayers
from the enjoyment of its services.
Leaving this somewhat sketchy level of discussion and looking into the distinction
between private and public goods more thoroughly, we discover that the
distinction turns out to be completely illusory. A clear-cut dichotomy between
private and public goods does not exist, and this is essentially why there can be
so many disagreements on how to classify a given good. All goods are more or
less private or public and can-and constantly do-change with respect to their
degree of privateness to publicness as people's values and evaluations change, and
as changes occur in the composition of the population. In order to recognize that
they never fall, once and for all, into either one or the other category, one must
only recall what makes something a good. For something to be a good it must
be recognized and treated as scarce by someone. Something is not a good as such,
that is to say; goods are goods only in the eyes of the beholder. Nothing is a
good unless at least one person subjectively evaluates it as such. But then, when
goods are never goods-as-such-when no physicochemical analysis can identify
something as an economic good-there is clearly no fixed, objective criterion
for classifying goods as either private or public. They can never be private or
public goods as such. Their private or public character depends on how few or
how many people consider them to be goods, with the degree to which they are
private or public changing as these evaluations change and ranging from one to
infinity. Even seemingly completely private things like the interior of my apartment
or the color of my underwear can thus become public goods as soon as
somebody else starts caring about them.1° And seemingly public goods, like the
exterior of my house or the color of my overalls, can become extremely private
goods as soon as other people stop caring about them. Moreover, every good
can change its characteristics again and again; it can even turn from a public or
private good to a public or private had or evil and vice versa, depending solely
on the changes in this caring or uncaring.
If this is so, then no decision whatsoever
can be based on the classification of goods as private or public." In fact,
to do so it would become necessary to ask virtually every individual person with
respect to every single good whether or not he happened to care about it-positively
or negatively and perhaps to what extent-in order to determine who might profit
from what and who should therefore participate in the good's financing. (And
how could one know ifthey were telling the truth?) It would also become necessary
to monitor all changes in such evaluations continuously, with the result that no
definite decision could ever be made regarding the production of anything, and
as a consequence of a nonsensical theory all of us would be long dead.
But even if one were to ignore all these difficulties, and were willing to admit
for the sake of argument that the private-public good distinction does hold water,
even then the argument would not prove what it is supposed to. It neither provides
inclusive reasons why public goods-assuming that they exist as a separate
category of goods-should be produced at all, nor why the state rather than private
enterprises should produce them. This is what the theory of public goods essentially says, having introduced the aforementioned conceptual distinction: The
positive effects of public goods for people who do not contribute anything to their
production or financing proves that these goods are desirable. But evidently they
would not be produced, or at least not in sufficient quantity and quality, in a free,
competitive market, since not all of those who would profit from their production
would also contribute financially to make the production possible. So in order
to produce these goods (which are evidently desirable, but would not be produced
otherwise), the state must jump in and assist in their production. This sort of
reasoning, which can be found in almost every textbook on economics (Nobel
laureates not ex~luded'~is) c ompletely fallacious and fallacious on two counts.
For one thing, to come to the conclusion that the state has to provide public
goods that otherwise would not be produced, one must smuggle a norm into one's
chain of reasoning. Otherwise, from the statement that because of some special
characteristics they have, certain goods would not be produced. One could never
reach the conclusion that these goods should be produced. But with a norm required
to justify their conclusion, the public goods theorists clearly have left the bounds
of economics as a positive, werrfrei science. Instead they have moved into the
realm of morals or ethics, and hence one would expect to be offered a theory
of ethics as a cognitive discipline in order for them to do legitimately what they
are doing and to justifiably derive their conclusion. But it can hardly be stressed
enough that nowhere in the public goods theory literature can there be found
anything that even faintly resembles such a cognitive theory of ethics." Thus
it must be stated at the outset, that the public goods theorists are misusing whatever
prestige they might have as positive economists for pronouncements on matters
on which, as their own writings indicate, they have no authority whatsoever.
Perhaps, though, they have stumbled on something correct by accident, without
having supported it with an elaborate moral theory? It becomes apparent that
nothing could be further from the truth as soon as one explicitly formulates the
norm that would be needed to arrive at the conclusion that the state has to assist
in the provision of public goods. The norm required to reach the above conclusion
is this: Whenever one can somehow prove that the production of a particular
good or service has a positive effect on someone else but would not be produced
at all or would not be produced in a definite quantity or quality unless certain
people participated in its financing, then the use of aggressive violence against
these persons is allowed, either directly or indirectly with the help of the state,
and these persons may be forced to share in the necessary financial burden. It
does not need much comment to show that chaos would result from implementing
this rule, as it amounts to saying that anyone can attack anyone else whenever
he feels like it. Moreover, as I have demonstrated in detail elsewhere" this norm
could never be justified as a fair norm. To argue so, in fact to argue at all, in
favor of or against anything, be it a moral, nonmoral, empirical, or logicoanalytical
position, it must be presupposed that contrary to what the norm actually says, each individual's integrity as a physically independent decision-making unit
is assured. For only if everyone is free from physical aggression by everyone
else could anything first be said and then agreement or disagreement on anything
possibly reached. The principle of nonaggression is thus the necessary precondition
for argumentation and possible agreement and hence can be argumentatively
defended as a just norm by means of a priori reasoning.
But the public goods theory breaks down not only because of the faulty moral
reasoning implied in it. Even the utilitarian, economic reasoning contained in
the above argument is blatantly wrong. As the public goods theory states, it might
well be that it would be better to have the public goods than not to have them,
though it should not he forgotten that no a priori reason exists that this must be
so of necessity (which would then end the public goods theorists' reasoning right
here). For it is clearly possible, and indeed known to be a fact, that anarchists
exist who so greatly abhor state action that they would prefer not having the so-called
public goods at all to having them provided by the state. In any case,
even if the argument is conceded so far, to leap from the statement that the public
goods are desirable to the statement that they should therefore be provided by
the state is anything but conclusive, as this is by no means the choice with which
one is confronted. Since money or other resources must be withdrawn from
possible alternative uses to fmance the supposedly desirable public goods, the
only relevant and appropriate question is whether or not these alternative uses
to which the money could be put (that is, the private goods which could have
been acquired but now cannot be bought because the money is being spent on
public goods instead) are more valuable-more urgent-than the public goods.
And the answer to this question is perfectly clear. In terms of consumer evaluations,
however high its absolute level might be, the value of the public goods
is relatively lower than that of the competing private goods because if one had
left the choice to the consumers (and had not forced one alternative upon them),
they evidently would have preferred spending their money differently (otherwise
no force would have been necessary). This proves beyond any doubt that the
resources used for the provision of public goods are wasted because they provide
consumers with goods or services that at best are only of secondary importance.
In short, even if one assumed that public goods that can be distinguished clearly
from private goods existed, and even if it were granted that a given public good
might be useful, public goods would still compete with private goods. And there
is only one method for finding out whether or not they are more urgently desired
and to what extent, or mutatis mutandis, if, and to what extent, their production
would take place at the expense of the nonproduction or reduced production of
more urgently needed private goods: by having everything provided by freely
competing private enterprises. Hence, contrary to the conclusion arrived at by
the public goods theorists, logic forces one to accept the result that only a pure
market system can safeguard the rationality, from the point of view of the consumers, of a decision to produce a public good. And only under a pure capitalist
order could it be ensured that the decision about how much of a public good to
produce (provided it should be produced at all) would be rational as well."
http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf
Having destroyed the public goods theory, unless one is willing to defend international communism, they must logically accept that there is no appropriate situation in which government intervention is required. To be free from the inefficiency and oppression inherent in the construct of any government, the only solution is free market anarchism.
For those interested in learning more about Austrian economics (the root of anarcho-capitalism), visit http://www.mises.org .
 
|
How can you read this kind of post if you arent an English native speaker ?
^^ I will try tomorrow maybe 
|
On March 10 2008 10:21 Boblion wrote:How can you read this kind of post if you arent an English native speaker ? ^^ I will try tomorrow maybe
Sorry, it probably will be tough for non-English speakers, but I can't translate it since I only know English :/
There might be a German version somewhere, since the author is German..
|
Paragraphing is clutch, that wall of text annoys my eyes and head. Can you fix it?
If not i guess i will try anyway.
|
yay spam!
I may have a crack at this tomorrow because that last post took a while to write.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
heh, the dissolution of the public private distinction is well worn, but to take the private line is interesting. one could take the opposite line and say the private does not exist, but are in fact all public.
|
Well, "Let's give Joe Jones all our guns and there won't be any shootings anymore!" might sound a bit silly (MRB), but on a day to day basis, I can see around me that it does work. Goverment *is* actually moderately successful at keeping social order. It could be a lot worse.
I do believe government has its flaws, and I think that a stable market anarchy might actually bring us more justice and prosperity. The problem is, how do you get a stable market anarchy? Just like one cannot just create political institutions to achieve any desired effect (DDF), one cannot just discontinue government and expect utopia. At least in history, so far, chaotic anarchy (the kind that gives "anarchy" such a negative connotation) and oppressive governments have been far more common than stable market anarchies.
Are you sure our current democratic society isn't "already pretty good" (MRB)? Perhaps a slightly better organized democratic society? If you think it's not, then what is your plan to go from here to stable market anarchy? Or is anarchy something that looks good on paper but doesn't work out in practice?
|
On March 10 2008 10:44 MoNKeYSpanKeR wrote:
Paragraphing is clutch, that wall of text annoys my eyes and head. Can you fix it?
If not i guess i will try anyway.
Working on it. There are still huge chunks, but its alittle better.
|
On March 10 2008 11:02 oneofthem wrote:
heh, the dissolution of the public private distinction is well worn, but to take the private line is interesting. one could take the opposite line and say the private does not exist, but are in fact all public.
The anarchist perspective isn't that all goods are private or that all goods are public, but that there is no distinction; all goods are goods. And all goods can be provided most efficiently on the free market. That is why I said in my last paragraph that to defend the state production of a particular good, one must defend the states ability to produce all goods, since there is no true distinction between private and public goods.
|
On March 10 2008 11:05 bash9 wrote:
Well, "Let's give Joe Jones all our guns and there won't be any shootings anymore!" might sound a bit silly (MRB), but on a day to day basis, I can see around me that it does work. Goverment *is* actually moderately successful at keeping social order. It could be a lot worse.
Saying things could be worse is hardly an argument against anarcho-capitalism. Yes, things could be worse. They could also be better. As for the government, they maintain social order through coercion and extortion. I don't think such practices are necessary or beneficial.
I do believe government has its flaws, and I think that a stable market anarchy might actually bring us more justice and prosperity. The problem is, how do you get a stable market anarchy? Just like one cannot just create political institutions to achieve any desired effect (DDF), one cannot just discontinue government and expect utopia. At least in history, so far, chaotic anarchy (the kind that gives "anarchy" such a negative connotation) and oppressive governments have been far more common than stable market anarchies.
Bringing about an anarcho-capitalist revolution won't be quick or easy. The best way, imo, is through education. To bring about anarcho-capitalism will require the public to be educated on why it is the best system, and why government is bad.
Are you sure our current democratic society isn't "already pretty good" (MRB)? Perhaps a slightly better organized democratic society?
Our current government is better then fascism or communism since the less state power the better, but it's not as good as having no state authority.
If you think it's not, then what is your plan to go from here to stable market anarchy? Or is anarchy something that looks good on paper but doesn't work out in practice?
Since it's never really been put into practice on any long-term basis with the suppport of the public, it's impossible to rule out its effectiveness empirically, one would have to attack the theory of it. I think that if enough people understood and accepted it, it would work better in practice than any government could. Of course, that is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Somalia doesn't have much state authority.
|
captainmurphy,
i do not really follow what you say about public goods.
but, i believe that taxes, especially progressive taxes are good for a country along with the government spending and welfare programs that come along with it. The government needs to equalize the starting line for the rich and poor. Class mobility, the ability for anyone to succeed, is an important part in making a strong country because it is a crucial part of growth. In theory, by providing the necessities such as schooling and medicine and other welfare programs, the government allows for people to born into poorer families public education for those that can't afford private schools. and food stamps and other welfare programs allow the kids to study instead of worrying about food.
similarly, the government is needed for infrastructure. they need to build bridges, roads, power plants, sewers, subways, and buses. those things are crucial for the success of trade and businesses. factories need power, ships make a shorter trip through the panama canal, trucks need roads, etc.
while the free market is the best in terms of efficiency, the government also needs to be concerned with the overall growth of the economy. the things i would like you to consider are the need for life to be a meritocracy rather than a birth lottery and the importance of government's role in building a country. there are probably maybe more arguments for why government is crucial but i can't think of them right now. i got the ez 2 i think.
yes, free markets and protecting businesses are very important towards growth and prosperity, but they're not the only thing.
|
That was a wall of text and I didn't read it simply because Anarchy at its most basest level is fundamentally flawed, because it requires the virtue of people. And people are not virtuous. If you said anything in that big post of yours that contradicted that statement in any kind of convincing way, please tell me so and I might actually read it.
Edit: Or if in this case anarchy was not intended as a means of societal rule.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2008 11:12 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2008 11:02 oneofthem wrote:
heh, the dissolution of the public private distinction is well worn, but to take the private line is interesting. one could take the opposite line and say the private does not exist, but are in fact all public. The anarchist perspective isn't that all goods are private or that all goods are public, but that there is no distinction; all goods are goods. And all goods can be provided most efficiently on the free market. That is why I said in my last paragraph that to defend the state production of a particular good, one must defend the states ability to produce all goods, since there is no true distinction between private and public goods.
that's a rather silly angle to take, since the contention is not over productive or distributive efficiency of goods but over private and public domain and the associated rights and obligations.
if you are talking about just public goods, these are defined by access exclusivity, a politically contingent question.
|
I stopped reading when you said that taxation was extortion.
Other people are analyzing it in depth, but let me ask you a simple question:
What exactly would stop me from coming into your house, killing you, and stealing your stuff, if not for a public police force or system of justice?
Grow up, Rondroid.
|
On March 10 2008 13:32 Plutonium wrote:
I stopped reading when you said that taxation was extortion.
Are you challenging this statement? See what happens if you don't pay your taxes. See if you don't get thrown in jail. Your only choice under government is to give them your money or they will exercise violence against you. That is the definition of extortion.
Other people are analyzing it in depth, but let me ask you a simple question:
What exactly would stop me from coming into your house, killing you, and stealing your stuff, if not for a public police force or system of justice?
Private Defence Agencies. Security is an economic good, and would naturally be provided under an anarcho-capitalist system.
|
that's a rather silly angle to take, since the contention is not over productive or distributive efficiency of goods but over private and public domain and the associated rights and obligations.
if you are talking about just public goods, these are defined by access exclusivity, a politically contingent question.
Did you read the post? The whole point of the excerpt was to demonstrate that exclusivity is not an objective distinction, but exists on a spectrum, even down to the most seemingly private goods such as deodorant or house development. You can't objectively define what constitutes a public good and what constitutes a private good because every good has externalities, the positives or negatives of which are entirely subjective. That is why it nonsensical to argue that certain goods could be more efficiently provided by the state than by the free market.
|
What happens to the people who can't afford to pay the "Private Defense Agency?" Is it OK to kill them? What happens if I break my leg and can't work for three months so I get fired, and have to choose between paying for food and paying for protection?
Unions wouldn't be able to exist, because there would be no laws against beating or killing striking workers to encourage the rest to get back to work.
What happens to orphaned children? Do we send them to work in the local sweatshops? What's to stop industrialists from completely destroying the environment for a much larger profit - they won't have to live with the results fifty years down the line?.
Hell, whats to stop slavery? Why even pay the workers, when I can hire guards with guns for a fraction of the cost?
Well, I hope I didn't interfere with your fun in your crackpipe Ayn Rand fantasy where we let the poor and the disabled all die because they're a drain on society. Let's not forget the elderly who had their pensions stolen by greedy CEO's who flee to the other end of the earth, without any repercussions, and god forbid if you get seriously ill and have to choose between paying between not only medicine and food, but also protection from being killed.
I can only hope you can one day become a productive member of society.
|
but, i believe that taxes, especially progressive taxes are good for a country along with the government spending and welfare programs that come along with it. The government needs to equalize the starting line for the rich and poor. Class mobility, the ability for anyone to succeed, is an important part in making a strong country because it is a crucial part of growth. In theory, by providing the necessities such as schooling and medicine and other welfare programs, the government allows for people to born into poorer families public education for those that can't afford private schools. and food stamps and other welfare programs allow the kids to study instead of worrying about food.
As a side note, literacy rates in the US were over 90% before education was socialized. Putting a good under the control of government must lead to a decrease in quality. Empirically we see how private schools are better than public ones. We often here about the extremely long wait times to see a doctor in Canada or to get an operation and how people will cross the border to use U.S. healthcare services. So I already question your underlying presumption that socializing certain industries would allow for them to be provided more effectively. But I don't want to make my case empirically, I would rather discuss the theory of it.
Let me ask you this; you do not advocate communism, right? You see how the free market can more efficinetly deliver toys, electronics, clothes, and cars, as opposed to socializing the production of these goods, right? If you agree, then what distinction do you make between these goods and education or medicine that you could use to argue that the state is more effective at providing the latter goods? The distinction most people point to is that of "public goods", and the point of the excerpt I posted was to show that no such distinction exists, and thus all goods can and will be better provided on the free market.
similarly, the government is needed for infrastructure. they need to build bridges, roads, power plants, sewers, subways, and buses. those things are crucial for the success of trade and businesses. factories need power, ships make a shorter trip through the panama canal, trucks need roads, etc.
Why is the government needed for these services? Presumably people desire them. If they are desired, then people will be willing to pay for them. If people are not willing to pay for them, then the conclusion you must draw is that they must not want them enough to warrant paying for them, otherwise they would pay for these services. If they don't, then, wish to pay for them (demostrating their preference to spend their money in other ways) what moral right do you have to force these people to fund it?
while the free market is the best in terms of efficiency, the government also needs to be concerned with the overall growth of the economy. the things i would like you to consider are the need for life to be a meritocracy rather than a birth lottery and the importance of government's role in building a country. there are probably maybe more arguments for why government is crucial but i can't think of them right now. i got the ez 2 i think.
yes, free markets and protecting businesses are very important towards growth and prosperity, but they're not the only thing.
You're assuming your conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
