EPTSuppose the US government collapses. Groups of people will naturally band together for mutual protection. The most effective of such groups will attract followers, many of who will have comparative advantage in economic output, and will voluntarily exchange some of their surplus for the opportunity to generate that output unmolested by other parties. Congratulations, you have government again.
A Case for Anarchism - Page 3
| Blogs > CaptainMurphy |
|
defenestrate
United States579 Posts
Suppose the US government collapses. Groups of people will naturally band together for mutual protection. The most effective of such groups will attract followers, many of who will have comparative advantage in economic output, and will voluntarily exchange some of their surplus for the opportunity to generate that output unmolested by other parties. Congratulations, you have government again. | ||
|
azndsh
United States4447 Posts
| ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
LOLOLOLOL And if people are poor they dont deserve security ? or health care ? Your ideas are weird. With such a political system, human life value become the value of the money that they own. This is common response from liberals, one that I used to buy in to (being a recovering liberal myself), but it neglects a couple important points. This is essentially the liberal argument from morality. You are saying that stealing is justified if the money is put to use that you deem as 'fair'. This creates a world of problems. You're basically advocating that anyone has the right to steal from anyone if they personally deem it as fair. At the very least, you are advocating that anyone can steal from anyone else who has more money then them, since stealing from the rich to give to the poor is presumably 'fair' stealing, according to you. But further, I would argue that the most moral distribution of health services is the one which provides the most benefit to everyone, not just poor people. And that can only be discerned on the free market. | ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
On March 10 2008 17:15 defenestrate wrote: Functionality aside, how do you figure it would be sustainable? Suppose the US government collapses. Groups of people will naturally band together for mutual protection. The most effective of such groups will attract followers, many of who will have comparative advantage in economic output, and will voluntarily exchange some of their surplus for the opportunity to generate that output unmolested by other parties. Congratulations, you have government again. If the state were to just randomly collapse today, anarcho-capitalism probably would not survive, let alone exist at all. Like any political theory, anarcho-capitalism requires the public to accept it, otherwise you have revolution. If true anarcho-capitalism was impelemented though, an argument for why it would not return to government society is presented here: http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/06/stateless-dictatorships-how-free.html | ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
On March 10 2008 17:29 azndsh wrote: You know, I don't think you'll be able to convince me, and I probably won't be able to convince you, but you've gotten me very interested in reading about economic theory again. Maybe I'll start with the Austrian school this time. Heh, when I started reading up on the Austrian school I had no intention of converting to anarchism. I was a staunch liberal democrat. But the more I read, the more I was like "holy shit, this makes a ton of sense." Best site to start at is http://www.mises.org | ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
Although you sound very educated, you draw absurd conclusions from non-absurd ideas. Welfare system = it's okay to steal from anyone as long as it's far. You arguments are reasonable, but your portrayal of the other side is not. Is this a good environment for rational debate and discourse? | ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
Premises: 1. Perhaps the only actual objective way to decide what is best is by what gives the highest overall utility. If you can think of a better way to objectively compare two different systems, I surely haven't heard it before. Agreed. 2. Democracy is the best way to accomplish the highest overall utility. Disagree :D Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically you argue that people should vote with money instead of everyone having an equal vote. In a way, it is voting with money. I see this as the purest form of democracy possible. Under traditional democracy, if 51% of the people vote for a government, the other 49% are forced to accept it. 51% of the people decide that person x has the best moral judgment to exercise his powers of resource allocation (ignoring that he would have to be a psychic to be able to allocate resources more efficiently than the market) over the entire 100%. The 49% in protest cannot opt out, or they are looking at jail time. So I see this as incomparibly less moral than capitalism, in which a person who is not satisfied with the provision of a certain service is allowed to opt out. Voting with dollars results in a lower overall utility though. Rich people have a bigger vote, so they might be happier, but the poor will be disproportionately less happy. You are overplaying the value of having more money here. Just because someone is rich, doesn't mean they will buy up more goods at the same rate. When rich people go grocery shopping, they're not going to buy up 1000x more groceries then the common man who they make 1000x more cash then. They may buy 2x or 3x as much, but the majority of markets rely on quantity of consumers. Although, in fact, it may be advantageous in terms of economic output to have an anarchical system, money and utility have a non-linear relationship, so a more equitable distribution of money and less total can result in higher total utility. On an unrelated note, often times higher utility translates to higher economic output in the long run (on the generation timescale). When might this be advantageous? Equitable distribution is communism. When is this equitable distribution desirable or efficient? Of course, democracy like any system is full of flaws in its implementation, but theoretically, it is the starting point for maximizing overall utility. So yeah, private/public goods is a spectrum, but people decide on the dividing line on that spectrum with votes. As mentioned above, their votes are to force their own judgment of allocating other peoples resources. 1. Economies of scale. While in theory a lot of things work with anarchy, they just don't in practice. Let's take education as an example again. Imagine a nationwide system of boarding schools that provide the best education in the country for free. It takes the students with the most potential, regardless of their financial background. In return, students agree to pay back a small percentage of all their future earnings. This sounds decent in theory, but the problem is the billions and billions in sunk costs required, for something that won't pay for itself for dozens of years. There is no such thing as free education, or any free economic good. The money to pay for it comes from taxes; you are forcing people to fund an industry that you think is a good idea. What if others don't like public education and would rather let private institutes compete for their dollar? You would tell them too bad, this is how I think your money should be spent. Again, though, you are arguing that a private good could best be provided by the state. If education could be, why not all goods? The same applies to say, a national interstate highway system. People could have instead opened toll roads all over the country. The initial investment is absolutely enormous, and the time it takes before it will pay for itself is on the order of decades or longer. In fact, this investment could very well fail altogether like many previous government policies. Who's going to invest in a project that won't pay off until after their death with also a large degree of uncertainty? The expected return is positive, but the initial investment is huge and/or the payoff is in the far future. Economies of this scale do cause market failures. So you think it is acceptable to force people to fund a project that has a high likelihood of failing? Well, you then mention that the expected return is positive. If that is the case then people will fund it. You're saying that you should get to determine what other people should fund based on your preferences. What if I don't want to fund it? What if instead of a highway the project in question is a state amusement park. Can you force me to fund that as well if you think it will be good (say, increase tourism and provide entertainment to children)? Why are you a better authority over how I spend my money than I am? Now you might say that a highway is clearly more beneficial than an amusement park. This is of course entirely subjective, but I think most people will tend to agree. And if most people agree that funding a highway is a good thing, then you don't have to coerce them to fund it. If you do coerce them to fund it, you find yourself coercing others into spending their own money in ways they don't want to. 2. Monopolies, coercive or natural, are not good. Coercive monopolies can most certainly and have most certainly arisen without the help of government: Standard Oil being the most obvious example. Coercive monopolies cannot arise legimitamtely in a free market. They require the use of coercion, which is criminal. If they engaged in such practices, PDAs representing the victims would take the monopoly to court. Only under the statist system, where government enforces such coercion, can a coercive monopoly legitimately arise. Standard Oil was not a coercive monopoly. "There are few unambiguous examples in business history where leading firms have attempted to gain or hold dominant market positions by engaging in extensive predatory practices.33 Even the allegedly classic examples of such practices in the nineteenth-century petroleum and tobacco industries (involving Standard Oil and American Tobacco) are either exaggerated or unfounded. Standard Oil secured its market position in petroleum primarily through internal efficiency and merger and not through systematic predatory practices." http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE3_1_4.pdf They provided a good service at a cheap price, and by the time the court even got finished with them (it took a while since they had to really reach for evidence), Standard Oil's market share was down to 64%; hardly a monopoly. Natural monopolies are the most efficient for production but not for the consumer. Being able to charge arbitrarily high prices maximizes only the company's profit and not the consumer's utility. And the high prices help pay the employees who go out and consume other goods, and then the company can afford to employ more people. Not to mention that the consumers, by virtue of the fact that they are paying for the good, demonstrate their willingness to buy it in that action. How do you know whether the good to a certain group of people (company employees) is not worth the cost to another group (consumers of the good) in overall utility? The only way is to let the free market dictate the prices. Otherwise you are instituting a price ceiling, which brings about market failure through deadweight loss and causes a shortage. To put the practical limitations of anarchy into a more general scope, one word summarizes it well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure The whole point of Austrian economics is to argue that government is the mechanism that brings about market failure. | ||
|
defenestrate
United States579 Posts
| ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
On March 10 2008 18:04 Ancestral wrote: I think the American modern usage of the word liberal is a gross misinterpretation. It bothers me so when you use it like that! And makes me sad to say I espouse liberal values. Word meanings change over time according to popular usage. Liberal these days generally means quasi-socialist. Although you sound very educated, you draw absurd conclusions from non-absurd ideas. If my conclusions are absurd, then attack them. Welfare system = it's okay to steal from anyone as long as it's far. If this isn't true show me why it isn't. Welfare system is using other peoples money to pay for services that you personally think are a "good" use of that persons money. what constitutes good use is entirely subjective. Obviously the person who's money you took didn't think it was a good use, otherwise you wouldn't have had to take it from him by force. You arguments are reasonable, but your portrayal of the other side is not. Is this a good environment for rational debate and discourse? We must disagree about one anothers position; if we saw both positions the same way, then we would agree on which position is the right one. If you think I have misrepresented your position, explain where or why. | ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
On March 10 2008 18:28 defenestrate wrote: The arguments in that link are silly. In the extremely unlikely case where DROs coexist without any inherent animosity (ethnic lines, religion, ideology, whatever), they can and will merge for the sake of economies of scale until the point where they become governments in all but name. This can also happen in spite of mild/moderate animosities in response to aggression by external governments. Even if they merge and form a natural monopoly, which would be very difficult to do over something as big and populated as a country-size land mass, there is still a fundamental difference between this natural monopoly and government. Subscription the the DRO is voluntary. | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On March 10 2008 16:01 CaptainMurphy wrote: It is either black and white or exists on a grey scale. You can't have it both ways. It exists either on a dichotomy or a spectrum. You need to demonstrate why a certain point on that spectrum makes government production the best option. Again, I have debated these at length in my first blog post which you're welcome to post in (providing you read the whole thing first, since otherwise you will likely bring up a topic already covered, as are all the ones you raise here), but the focus of this entry is on the theoretical model. I maintain that no market failure does have to occur in the industries you mention, and that market failure is created from government intervention (artificial price fixing). There is no point in just flatly stating that a certain amount of balance is required, since my whole argument is that goernment is *not* required. The burden of proof is on you to explain why government intervention is necessary. Show me how this supposed market failure comes about. Don't just make flat assertions, give evidence. Explain to me why education is better provided by the state then the free market. Most economists who subscribe to the public goods theory wouldn't even consider education to be a public good. So even if I grant you that there is a distinction between public and private goods, you are saying that this private good is more efficiently provided by the state then by the free market. If private goods can be better provided by the state, why even have a market at all? Why not have all industry be centrally planned? There are two types of monopolies. The first type is a natural monopoly. A natural monopoly exists when one firm provides the best quality product at the lowest price and all attracts all the consumers from competitors firms. There is not, in this case, an absence of competition, only of competitors due to the firms efficiency. You would be hard pressed to argue that this is market failure. The second type of monopoly is a coercive monopoly. This is a monopoly that exists because it uses aggression to bar competing firms from entering the market. This type of monopoly can only exist with the aid of government. This type of monopoly must lead to market failure, and is one of the central anarcho-capitalist arguments against government. ironically you are creating somewhat of a false dichotomy right here. While you are technically right, you need to understand that things can be quite "black or white" in a practical sense, even if it really is just the extremes of a gray scale. Practicality and realism are what seem to be missing from your views. You present your arguments for the free market quite well..but there are key points you are ignoring. You arguments are logically consistent, but you are missing the whole point. It doesn't work for obvious reasons....huge ones that wouldn't be solved unless we lived in some sort of utopia where people lacked basic human traits. An anarchy would never be self sustaining...as people would form together in groups existing as separate "mini" governments until one or a few got big enough to mirror what we already have. Why would they do this? Because they would realize that there is power in numbers and "order." Sure, at first it might start out as a commune of sorts, but it wouldn't take long until they would start enforcing rules and performing tasks similar to that of any government today. It's an ironic twist but the free market would create the "demand" for some sort of order. There are generally very simple reasons why arguing any sort of idealistic position fails in the context of the real world. What is the point of having a logically consistent argument ( at least assuming one accepts your premises ) if it fails to work in any practical sense. As a last example, someone could do the same thing with communism, and start with reasonable premises like your own. They would give a logically consistent argument but ignore the reality of human nature that make it all fail in practice. Because anarchy is unsustainable, what you are really arguing is a highly capitalistic society vs a highly communistic one. Imagine the "types" of governments on the gray scale we were talking about. Both extremes are only sustainable to a certain degree in reality. Basically arguing in ideals is useless because it ignores any sense of realism and practicality...all of which are important when it comes to how things are done. | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On March 10 2008 18:35 CaptainMurphy wrote: Even if they merge and form a natural monopoly, which would be very difficult to do over something as big and populated as a country-size land mass, there is still a fundamental difference between this natural monopoly and government. Subscription the the DRO is voluntary. This is what I'm talking about. The only difference would be in ideals. In all practical senses, it would be very similar. Making things voluntary only means so much when one option is clearly superior to others. What I also really want to stress is that for all your arguing, it is quite pointless other than an interesting topic to think about. The first governments came from anarchy, and while there are flaws when it comes to existing governments and ideals..... people realized that efforts are much better spent working on a type of government that meets those ideals best in practice, rather then talk about anarchy like it is a legitimate option. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
The other thing is that you seem to spend all your post talking about free markets, when the main point of anarchy in general is to disable systems of rule, to work for the greatest possible freedom. You can of course argue that laissez faire capitalism is the best way to go about that, but from my perspective, arguing for laissez faire can, at best, only be a small part of making a case for anarchy. As to free markets themselves, there is a good quote: "free markets mean that those who don't have enough money to buy what they need do not have a right to live." This is troubling to me, and to many other people. This does not, of course, mean I am automatically in favor of a welfare state. Another thing that troubles me is that I see no reason to think corporations would be any more just or humane than governments. Indeed, much of what is going on today reflects the fact that governments are increasingly run in the interest of corporate power and profit. To think that corporations might run amok, completely free of regulation is scary for me. Whether it is corporations or the state, it is still the same people, and with the same goals. Neither case looks particularly good to me! | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
Anarchy means "no rule." It is an ideal, an extreme, and an abstraction - a pure thing with no basis in reality. Still, we can be closer or further from the purity of anarchy. If you identify as an anarchist, and you favor laissez faire, you have to make the case that laissez faire better matches anarchy than some other school of anarchy (and there are many). It's not an issue of perfection, it's just an issue of what comes closest to the ideal. Anarchists are, of course, critical of power. Anarchists want freedom from coercion. Along these lines, anarchists are critical of the state. It makes sense. Why should the government have all this authority over us, to tax us, to wage war in our name, etc? But is the state the only source of domination and coercion? Of course not! So what other structures or institutions might exist that perpetuate coercion and domination? Anarchists tend to see heirarchy in general as the problem. With heirarchy comes domination and coercion. So, as a laissez faire capitalist, you have to make the case for laissez faire being the system that best reduces heirarchy. Now, we all know that capitalism concentrates wealth and power - this has always been true. This lends itself directly to heirarchy. Those who own the means of production own the means to life; they hold all the bargaining chips. Those with nothing must surrender to those who have everything, or else die. Power corrupts. So, most anarchists agree with you - the state must go. But they take the critique further. Capitalism concentrates wealth and power, and sets the stage for domination and coercion. Therefore, capitalism must go, too. Anarchist critique can go even deeper than this. Some anarchists argue that technology itself leads to domination. Consider time, which is a technology, and how time is used to dominate and coerce. Time itself is used to synchronize the movements of masses of people - something obviously useful to large scale heirarchical systems. Some anarchists argue that agriculture was the step that led to massive imbalances of power, so they argue for a return to the "primitive" state. My point here is not to advocate any particular position at all, but to point out that anarchism is about eliminating rule, eliminating heirarchy and domination and all that stuff. What you seem to have done is read up on economic theory, and base your anarchism entirely on the economic sphere. This is a good first step, but to think that domination and coercion are located only in the government is short sighted. Look beyond economics. I recommend getting into sociology and culture studies, and you'll see many other dimensions to critiques of power. On the other hand, you may freely admit that laissez faire is not really anarchist, but is still the best possible solution to X problem. Many people do this, just as many people would prefer the state to whatever "real" anarchy might be. From my perspective, your anarchism doesn't go far enough. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On March 10 2008 17:48 CaptainMurphy wrote: This is common response from liberals, one that I used to buy in to (being a recovering liberal myself), but it neglects a couple important points. This is essentially the liberal argument from morality. You are saying that stealing is justified if the money is put to use that you deem as 'fair'. This creates a world of problems. You're basically advocating that anyone has the right to steal from anyone if they personally deem it as fair. At the very least, you are advocating that anyone can steal from anyone else who has more money then them, since stealing from the rich to give to the poor is presumably 'fair' stealing, according to you. But further, I would argue that the most moral distribution of health services is the one which provides the most benefit to everyone, not just poor people. And that can only be discerned on the free market. You didnt really answered  What do you do for poor people ? You let them die ? How can free market provide them health care if they are poor ? i would like to read some economic explanations. I hope that a weirdo like you will never be elected  ( no offence but i dont like your ideas )With your ideas morality become money. | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
On March 10 2008 18:30 CaptainMurphy wrote: Word meanings change over time according to popular usage. Liberal these days generally means quasi-socialist. can you elaborate on what quasi-socialist means? I haven't met a single liberal who didn't believe in the free market. | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
But why are you whinning about this form of government. Democratic governments are the best thing we got. | ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
ironically you are creating somewhat of a false dichotomy right here. While you are technically right, you need to understand that things can be quite "black or white" in a practical sense, even if it really is just the extremes of a gray scale. True. The extremes of the grey scale are free market anarchism and communism. Entirely state controlled or entirely not state controlled. The grey comes in when you try and make cases for "enough" state control. Practicality and realism are what seem to be missing from your views. You present your arguments for the free market quite well..but there are key points you are ignoring. So you admit that my argument makes sense... but you still think it won't work. Ok. You arguments are logically consistent, but you are missing the whole point. It doesn't work for obvious reasons....huge ones that wouldn't be solved unless we lived in some sort of utopia where people lacked basic human traits. I disagree. But you're getting at what most people think of when they think of anarchism; that everythig would dissolve into chaos and morals would be thrown out the window. There is simply no reason to think this. We don't get our morals from our government. Morals are innate, and government was created by the people because enough people believed it was a good idea. Anarchical society would not be a society of no rules, it is just that anarcho-capitalists believe these rules could be better enforced without government. An anarchy would never be self sustaining...as people would form together in groups existing as separate "mini" governments until one or a few got big enough to mirror what we already have. An anarchic society, just like any type of government structure, would not function if most people didn't want it to. If most people want to form a government, then a government will form. Why would they do this? Because they would realize that there is power in numbers and "order." Sure, at first it might start out as a commune of sorts, but it wouldn't take long until they would start enforcing rules and performing tasks similar to that of any government today. It's an ironic twist but the free market would create the "demand" for some sort of order. Order can be provided on the free market. Anarchism doesn't create the demand for government, but as I said above, if a majority of people want government, they will likely be able to impliment one by force. What is the point of having a logically consistent argument ( at least assuming one accepts your premises ) if it fails to work in any practical sense. This is somewhat contradictory. If my argument makes logical sense, then it should work. If you don't think anarcho-capitalism would work, then some part of my argument must be illogical or wrong. As a last example, someone could do the same thing with communism, and start with reasonable premises like your own. They would give a logically consistent argument but ignore the reality of human nature that make it all fail in practice. If you want to start your own blog and try to defend communism, I would be happy to debate that with you. I don't believe that communism can stand on the same logical ground anarcho-capitalism can. Because anarchy is unsustainable, what you are really arguing is a highly capitalistic society vs a highly communistic one. Imagine the "types" of governments on the gray scale we were talking about. Both extremes are only sustainable to a certain degree in reality. Blanket statement, no proof. Basically arguing in ideals is useless because it ignores any sense of realism and practicality...all of which are important when it comes to how things are done. Anarchism doesn't ignore reality. If you want to argue about specifics you can check out my first blog post, or this link for info: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp | ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
This is what I'm talking about. The only difference would be in ideals. In all practical senses, it would be very similar. It may be superficially similar, but there is a huge difference between whether competition is allowed or not. Making things voluntary only means so much when one option is clearly superior to others. Making things voluntary means everything. There will always be a superior option on the free market. Making things voluntary is what allows people to choose the superior option. What I also really want to stress is that for all your arguing, it is quite pointless other than an interesting topic to think about. The first governments came from anarchy, and while there are flaws when it comes to existing governments and ideals..... people realized that efforts are much better spent working on a type of government that meets those ideals best in practice, rather then talk about anarchy like it is a legitimate option. People may have started from a lack of government, but they never entertained the thought of anarcho-capitalism. People naturally banded into communistic family tribes. | ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
You didnt really answered Basically what I'm saying is that your view of morality is that poor people are more important than everyone else. Free market capitalism brings the most benefit to everyone. Welfare tramples peoples rights and benefits a few at the expense of everyone else. What do you do for poor people ? For one, not tax them :D You let them die ? How can free market provide them health care if they are poor ? i would like to read some economic explanations. First, most people are generally moral and if someone comes in who needs an operation, they will likely be able to get it. But the reason I don't like this line of reasoning is that it doesn't take into account all the negative effects of not letting the free market act. Socialized healthcare will necessarily be inefficient since the market doesn't set the price and the government bars any competition. As we hear about in other places that have socialized medicine, there are very long wait times to see a doctor or get an operation. People have died waiting for operations in Canada. Your argument is equivalent to me saying that socialized medicine is bad because people have died from being on the waitlist for too long. So coercing citizens to help the poor ended up hurting society at large. Yes it is possible for people to die in anarcho-capitalist society, but it is also possible and can be caused by socialized healthcare. The question is, which system is net better for every member of society, not just the poor, and that is capitalism. The question you haven't answered is, if you believe that healthcare (a clearly private good under any standards) can be more efficiently provided by the state, why not have all private goods be produced by the state? | ||
| ||
