On March 11 2008 12:47 KaasZerg wrote: Youre right. There are no moral obligations. But the social darwinism would make a very harsh world. With zero artifical (non-market) redistribution of wealth there would be law of the economic jungle. This may be efficient but it will weed out the weak. It would be efficient missery. The problem of poverty won't disappear IMO.
If you agree that there are no moral obligations compelling someone to give their money to someone else, then you must agree that to force someone to give their money to another- stealing- is immoral. So if you are a statist, then, you must at the very least admit that your system is immoral. You can also, hopefully, appreciate the irony in an institution which takes away liberty to preserve it. To address what you say about it weeding out the weak: If 100 people are forced into a poor existence so that 300 people can be lifted to a prosperous one, why would that be evil? I don't see the argument that 'well, this particular subset of people could be hurt, therefore your idea is bad' as being a good one, since it doesn't take into account those who benefit. The net effect on society of removing government I believe will be positive. I don't believe any system which necessitates stealing from everyone who it decides lies inside its juristiction can be a good or effective system, and I think it must bring about more misery then a free system. And you're right, poverty won't disappear. The only way to get rid of poverty is to implement communism; then no one is relatively better or worse off than anyone else.
There are also examples of privatized companies that failed to become more efficient then its staterun form. These are natural monopolies in witch case it is a sellers market with a huge entry barrier for competition by nature of the product.
Natural monopolies are efficient. Every market has barriers to entry. Whether the cost is high or low, it exists on a spectrum. But barriers to entry exist, and they are natural. How can you arbitrarily conclude where a barrier to entry is "too high"? There is no way to. Natural barriers to entry are part of the free market, and they factor in to the determination of market price. The only 'bad' barrier to entry, imo, is the unnatural barrier. Unnatural barriers occur when a firm uses violence to force out other competitors. This creates market failure/ inefficiency. The only way this can legally occur is with government. Government is state-sanctioned mafia. Anyways, please give an example of a company that was private, but became more efficient upon becoming state controlled.
On a somewhat related note, here is a fun rant against government:
On March 11 2008 06:58 geometryb wrote: i don't read every post in here so i don't know if you've mentioned anything about these but i'll just name a few important issues that markets can't address.
markets don't address emissions the governance of the open seas, skies, or space climate change endangered species ecological devastation (overfishing, pollution, water use) murder, theft, and other crimes protection of intellectual and private property
What I've said several times is that this blog is not meant to discuss specifics, you can check my first blog for that, or you can check this link: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp Short answer: the market can address all these concerns.
i read it. i couldn't find the answer. i don't see how the market can address any of the issues. could you plz explain it to me?
that just seems like a fairytale utopia that would never work because of all the failures and abuses. i guess the best historical evidence would be that the world started in anarchy and governments started up independently all over the place. so here's blah:
you realize that markets won't prevent overfishing. they'll just make them more expensive until they are all gone. e.g. buffalo/bison in north america... whales...
i don't see understand how intellectual/property rights work in anarchy. the person who uses it owns it or the person who owns it owns it? im not sure. so if i own a plot of land, then it's mine forever?
if i owned a chunk of a river, i would build a dam on it and make lots of money supplying energy to people close to me and the people a lot farther down the river would be screwed since the part of the river they use is all dried up now.
so i'm kind of confused by what they mean by property rights. surely, no one owns the river? i mean if i build a huge net and catch all the fish upstream are the downhill fishermen allowed to blame me? i'm just better at catching fish. and surely they don't own the water itself. if i used it all to power my generators how could they blame me? the water is mine too.
free market courts seems very stupid to me. obviously if fair courts were what people wanted then there would be no problem. but if i committed to a crime, I would never agree to be taken to a court that would find me guilty and likewise, the accuser would never agree to be taken to a court that would find me innocent.
private armies can be built just as easily as private security. furthermore private security has the implication that they would go to the highest bidder and they would have a lot more to gain by joining the people who want to shoot you and take your stuff.
obviously people don't want to go to a fair court, they want to go to a court that will rule in their favor...
If you agree that there are no moral obligations compelling someone to give their money to someone else, then you must agree that to force someone to give their money to another- stealing- is immoral.
my statist immorality is less painful than your callous immorality. to solve this problem, just attach a please to every irs statement.
On March 11 2008 03:08 CaptainMurphy wrote: Basically what I'm saying is that your view of morality is that poor people are more important than everyone else.
I dont care if Bill Gates can earn more money because of tax cuts. He doesnt need it to live. On the other hand there are many people who struggle to survive because of poverty. So yea i guess that their lifes are more important than tax cuts.
On March 11 2008 03:08 CaptainMurphy wrote: Free market capitalism brings the most benefit to everyone.
Pure ideology. Economic efficiency doesnt mean benefits to everyone. You need more knowledge about economics, you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency Efficient =/= fair.
On March 11 2008 03:08 CaptainMurphy wrote: Welfare tramples peoples rights and benefits a few at the expense of everyone else.
Yea let them starve because they are expensive -.-
For once you have a good idea. Poor people should be exempted of taxes. But this doesnt mean that rich people shouldnt be taxed
On March 11 2008 03:08 CaptainMurphy wrote: First, most people are generally moral and if someone comes in who needs an operation, they will likely be able to get it.
You are NAIVE. What about generic AIDS drugs in Africa ? For sure firms are moral ^^
On March 11 2008 03:08 CaptainMurphy wrote: 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.
Who cares if it is economic efficient ? The goal is to save people or to help them.
On March 11 2008 03:08 CaptainMurphy wrote: 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.
You should come to France, it works not that bad here...
On March 11 2008 03:08 CaptainMurphy wrote: 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.
Lol flawless reasoning
On March 11 2008 03:08 CaptainMurphy wrote: 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?
Because i think that even poor people have the right to have a good health ( education is another example ) and State is the only organization who can provide it for free. On the contrary i dont care if they have an Ipod or a car, they dont need it to live. And please dont say " duh you are always talking about morality " because a society with huge inequalities and without morality can hardly persist. Soon or later poor people will make a revolution. But anyway the society that you describe will never exist because poor people ( they are quite numerous ) arent stupid and they wont vote for a politician with this kind of ideas ( it isnt their interest ).
By the way sorry if i'm a bit inquisitive but i would like to know what is your age and your job/studies. Can you pm me please ? ( it is just curiosity )
that just seems like a fairytale utopia that would never work because of all the failures and abuses. i guess the best historical evidence would be that the world started in anarchy and governments started up independently all over the place. so here's blah:
The world started with communistic tribes.
you realize that markets won't prevent overfishing. they'll just make them more expensive until they are all gone. e.g. buffalo/bison in north america... whales...
Ok
i don't see understand how intellectual/property rights work in anarchy. the person who uses it owns it or the person who owns it owns it? im not sure. so if i own a plot of land, then it's mine forever?
If you own a plot of land, it's yours until you sell it. Same how if you own a car its yours until you sell it, if you own a house it's yours until you sell it, etc
if i owned a chunk of a river, i would build a dam on it and make lots of money supplying energy to people close to me and the people a lot farther down the river would be screwed since the part of the river they use is all dried up now.
so i'm kind of confused by what they mean by property rights. surely, no one owns the river? i mean if i build a huge net and catch all the fish upstream are the downhill fishermen allowed to blame me? i'm just better at catching fish. and surely they don't own the water itself. if i used it all to power my generators how could they blame me? the water is mine too.
There is no such thing as a system where no one gets screwed. There aren't unlimited resources. Some people are invariably going to get more than others, unless you want communism. The idea that it's somehow okay to steal from everyone at the point of a gun to promote 'fairness' doesn't make much sense to me.
[quote]free market courts seems very stupid to me. obviously if fair courts were what people wanted then there would be no problem. but if i committed to a crime, I would never agree to be taken to a court that would find me guilty and likewise, the accuser would never agree to be taken to a court that would find me innocent.
private armies can be built just as easily as private security. furthermore private security has the implication that they would go to the highest bidder and they would have a lot more to gain by joining the people who want to shoot you and take your stuff.
obviously people don't want to go to a fair court, they want to go to a court that will rule in their favor... You definitely didn't read the link, both these were covered. It's silly to think you can't have defense services or arbitration services without stealing from citizens.
my statist immorality is less painful than your callous immorality.
I'm callous because I think stealing is wrong? I think you're callous to say that stealing is okay. And if you haven't noticed, the government isn't this Robin Hood figure that takes from the rich to give to the poor. They take from everyone to fund themselves, and give some crumbs to the poor.
to solve this problem, just attach a please to every irs statement.
You mean make tax paying voluntary? I agree. As soon as you do that, you cease to have a government and you have an efficient privately run service.
I dont care if Bill Gates can earn more money because of tax cuts. He doesnt need it to live. On the other hand there are many people who struggle to survive because of poverty. So yea i guess that their lifes are more important than tax cuts.
It's not just Bill Gates. Taxes are stealing from everyone, poor people included. Every time anyone purchases an item or receives a paycheck, the government takes money from you at the threat of violence. Poor people get fucked over too, especially poor people in other countries when government sees fit to subsidize domestic industries or invade to 'protect their economic interests'. But if you did see a poor person on the street, no one in an anarcho-capitalist society is going to prevent you from giving them money or food.
Pure ideology. Economic efficiency doesnt mean benefits to everyone. You need more knowledge about economics, you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency Efficient =/= fair.
What do you mean by fair? The way I see it, fair allocation of resources means either let consumers make their own decisions on the free market with no coercion, or distribute all resources equally ala communism.
Yea let them starve because they are expensive -.-
I wouldn't let them starve. Nothing is stopping people from voluntarily giving charity. If I saw a starving person on the street I would gladly feed them. What I'm saying is, don't rob people who don't choose to give their money to others. Not to mention how many people are starving and have been killed because of government.
For once you have a good idea. Poor people should be exempted of taxes. But this doesnt mean that rich people shouldnt be taxed
I don't think there is a cut off point where it is suddenly okay to steal from someone.
You are NAIVE. What about generic AIDS drugs in Africa ? For sure firms are moral ^^
Aids treatment in Africa is on the rise, but the reason the drugs are so expensive is because of government granted patents for the drug companies. But hey, I guess governments are moral, right? Not like governments have ever committed senseless killing or caused millions of people to be poor through domestic subsidization, or jobless through minimum wage laws (which hasn't stopped us from spending massively overseas). If you think people are immoral, why on earth would you want government? Government is made up of people, people with the authority to steal.
Who cares if it is economic efficient ? The goal is to save people or to help them.
Again, people are free to help voluntarily under anarcho-capitalism. The goal is to have the best system for everyone, and a system that steals from everyone isn't the best way to do that. Socialized medacine has caused people to die that had to wait too long to see a doctor, and there's a reason Canadians come down to the US to use our healthcare. If socialization is best for healthcare, why not every other industry as well?
You should come to France, it works not that bad here...
I'll stick with American healthcare, thanks. Unfortunately looks like ours is about to become socialized as well.
Lol flawless reasoning
Good counterpoint.
Because i think that even poor people have the right to have a good health ( education is another example ) and State is the only organization who can provide it for free. On the contrary i dont care if they have an Ipod or a car, they dont need it to live.
Why don't poor people have a right to cars or Ipods? Education and health care are not necessities. They are highly desirable, more so than cars sure, but I don't think people have a right to anything they don't own. I don't think poor people are more important than the rest of society, such that it is okay to steal from everyone to help a few, I think everyone has an equal right to be secure in their property.
And please dont say " duh you are always talking about morality " because a society with huge inequalities and without morality can hardly persist. Soon or later poor people will make a revolution. But anyway the society that you describe will never exist because poor people ( they are quite numerous ) arent stupid and they wont vote for a politician with this kind of ideas ( it isnt their interest ).
No, I wouldn't expect a poor person to vote out someone who says "I'm going to steal from your neighbor to give to you", nevermind that the government is perfectly willing to steal from you as well and build shoddy housing projects. But hopefully there will be a revolution against government, when people realize that they don't need to be threatened by violence to live their lives. I think you're wrong though, an immoral society can persist as long as enough people are apathetic about it. The modern nation-state proves this.
By the way sorry if i'm a bit inquisitive but i would like to know what is your age and your job/studies. Can you pm me please ? ( it is just curiosity )
19/econ major. I have two questions for you; why is it okay for one person to decide how to spend another persons money? This isn't just a Bill Gates thing, we've handed the judgment over to a small group of people (government) and they are allowed (by powers granted to them by them) to spend everyone's money how they see fit.
Second question; do you advocate a one world government?
and let us assume my community is fertile with an abundance of natural resources and so we hire a private security force to defend ourselves from bandits, who would want to rob us. now there is also another community nearby that also has many desirable resources. now, let us pretend that my community is much stronger because we have more people and resources and better technology thereby we can hire a bigger and better security force. We realize that we can gain much more by killing them and taking their natural resources than trading with them and so we do. So we go in with our larger and better army and start killing them off and taking their property. Obviously they aren't happy about that so they take it to a court made up of many other communities. The court obviously rules in their favor, but is it able to enforce their ruling? do they have the armies to back their decision? Perhaps, i made deals with other communities to share the "spoils" of conquering that smaller community in return for protection from any disciplinary actions. the article mentions national defense and that the community will choose to build defense on its own and will take to guerrilla warfare on its own. Obviously the ability for a community to defend itself is correlated with its own resources. If it has fewer resources, its defense will be weaker. As to guerrilla warfare, it is more often the case that they become swallowed up by the larger more powerful country than actually succeed in fighting them off especially when the conquerors care more about the land and resources than the people living there.
i will argue that it is impossible for anarchy to exist because at least some sort of government will have to be created--whether it's a monarchy or democracy or what have you. you could say that there is a market demand for leadership to command the armies and secure resources for its own people.
if you look at things in terms of game theory, it's almost always better to conquer weaker peoples and steal their resources than it is to trade with them. and in order to do that you have to have some sort of decision making process in place (government). there is a demand for an army, but if you look at who's demanding it...it is someone or a group of people who will use it to establish control.
furthermore, the advantages to conquering vast areas leads to "peace." For example the pax romana and pax mongola where the Roman Empire spread across the world or the Mongol Empire extended across asia and enabling easier trade because of the dissolving of boundaries within the empire and the crushing of bandit gangs that would attack merchants.
because of the imbalance of resources, there would inevitably be the creation of regional governments through conquest to secure additional resources. only when people aren't able to conquer their neighbors will they be willing to trade. if everybody was happy with their own little plot of land then there would be no problem. but obviously, everyone wants oil fields and the most fertile soil and the part of the ocean with the most fish. And the easiest way, if you can, to obtain it is through force.
On March 12 2008 08:14 geometryb wrote: let us assume that we live in anarchy.
and let us assume my community is fertile with an abundance of natural resources and so we hire a private security force to defend ourselves from bandits, who would want to rob us. now there is also another community nearby that also has many desirable resources. now, let us pretend that my community is much stronger because we have more people and resources and better technology thereby we can hire a bigger and better security force. We realize that we can gain much more by killing them and taking their natural resources than trading with them and so we do. So we go in with our larger and better army and start killing them off and taking their property. Obviously they aren't happy about that so they take it to a court made up of many other communities. The court obviously rules in their favor, but is it able to enforce their ruling? do they have the armies to back their decision? Perhaps, i made deals with other communities to share the "spoils" of conquering that smaller community in return for protection from any disciplinary actions. the article mentions national defense and that the community will choose to build defense on its own and will take to guerrilla warfare on its own. Obviously the ability for a community to defend itself is correlated with its own resources. If it has fewer resources, its defense will be weaker. As to guerrilla warfare, it is more often the case that they become swallowed up by the larger more powerful country than actually succeed in fighting them off especially when the conquerors care more about the land and resources than the people living there.
An anarchic society would not be entirely absent of fighting. But it would be lessened from the perpetual warfare that embodies statist society. Back to the hypothetical in anarchic society; if one firm tried to attack land that was protected by another firm, not only would that firm fight back, but others would likely fight back as well, since they see what this outlaw firm is capable of and would thus be very distrustful of it. You say that they would make deals with the other firms in the surrounding area, but what other firm would be that foolish? This outlaw firm is saying 'I don't abide by moral principles, I have no problem stealing land and resources to suit my purposes; but if you join with me, I promise not to take your land!" no one would beleive them, and the surrounding firms would support the firm whos rights were being encroached upon. For this same reason, customers of the outlaw firm would turn against it. The land grab doesn't benefit them, and they would fear that if their firm is capable of stealing land and coercing others, what would stop them from doing the same to them? Every rational person would fight against the outlaw firm.
i will argue that it is impossible for anarchy to exist because at least some sort of government will have to be created--whether it's a monarchy or democracy or what have you. you could say that there is a market demand for leadership to command the armies and secure resources for its own people.
If there is a market demand for oppression, then there will be oppression. That is why I personally think (other anarchists might disagree) that before anarchy can be successfully implemented, the general public first has to accept it.
if you look at things in terms of game theory, it's almost always better to conquer weaker peoples and steal their resources than it is to trade with them. and in order to do that you have to have some sort of decision making process in place (government). there is a demand for an army, but if you look at who's demanding it...it is someone or a group of people who will use it to establish control.
If conquering is always better than trading, how do you explain all the trade that goes on in global society? Trading is extremely efficient; conquest is risky and expensive. Although, if a political leader is able to convince his citizens using rhetoric about nationalism and patriotism to induce fear that it is in their interest for each person to dump thousands into a war effort to 'protect American interests', then war can break out. Only government could trick people like this to fund such a massively expensive operation. The only people who benefit are government, or those with personal ties to government.
furthermore, the advantages to conquering vast areas leads to "peace." For example the pax romana and pax mongola where the Roman Empire spread across the world or the Mongol Empire extended across asia and enabling easier trade because of the dissolving of boundaries within the empire and the crushing of bandit gangs that would attack merchants.
Examples of wiping out one type of violence to replace it with another. How stable were those empires? They collapsed into violence. No government has ever been able to maintain, let alone create peace. The very nature of government is non-peaceful. Or rather, peaceful if you do exactly as it says. All governments do is expand their authority (restrict individuals freedoms) and create war.
because of the imbalance of resources, there would inevitably be the creation of regional governments through conquest to secure additional resources. only when people aren't able to conquer their neighbors will they be willing to trade. if everybody was happy with their own little plot of land then there would be no problem. but obviously, everyone wants oil fields and the most fertile soil and the part of the ocean with the most fish. And the easiest way, if you can, to obtain it is through force.
I don't belive the creation of governments is inevitable for reasons listed above, nor do I accept that conquest is always the most efficient means. Although it is more likely if government is involved.
obviously not every land grab will be worth it, but there will still be many that are. the community will have to weigh the consequences of invasion with the gains. i believe that rational people will act to achieve the most gain so they won't be stopped by "moral principles" against theft. the power of the court rests in the armies, or force, of the membership community. i think history will show that there are many aggressors that go unpunished by the international community because others have more to gain by siding with the aggressor or that people can't do anything about it.
cortez was able to defeat the aztecs with a handful of men and that gave the spaniards a great supply of rare metals and sugar plantations and the like. the united states was able to crush the indians. undoubtedly, the colonial powers were able to amass great wealth through the seizing of lands and the enslaving populations that they would not have access to otherwise. obviously trying to take over someone else that is as strong as you is fairly difficult, so in that case it would be more beneficial to trade.
i'm not making the case that governments are good, but rather that they are inevitable because people tend to form communities and that communities need to make decisions that will benefit themselves the most. i would argue that the demand for an army to conquer other peoples or defend yourself entails a leader because otherwise they would just be men with guns. furthermore, a leader that has an army has power. it doesn't matter whether the army is controlled democratically or by one person, it still leads to government. i dont know how you would argue a market controlled army. given that it could provide the existence of an army, once it's made whoever controls it will seize power as long as he's rational. even if there's somehow a "free market" for many armies, the one you give the right to enforce your court rulings, defend your community, and extend your borders becomes the one that rules you.
in conclusion, i feel like government (arguably poor government) is inevitable. that people act out of personal gain and that markets do not deter the theft of property (conquest).
I don't believe governments are inevitable. Governments have formed in the past, but rarely has there been a society where people wanted anarchocapitalism. The fact that governments have formed doesn't mean that they are inevitable, and I have listed my reasons above for why I think this. But all this is of secondary importance. Imagine we were living in prehistoric times, and I was trying to convince you that western democracies were the best form of government. Would you tell me that there haven't been any in the past, therefore they cannot exist? Of course not. They require first that the idea develop and be accepted. Also, you would be right to point out that whether they could or couldn't exist is secondary to the point of whether they should exist.
For you and everyone, an Anarchist FAQ, discussing everything from dispute resolution organizations to the funding of roads, to collective security, to the potential for government reemergence and more:
if you think that no one will use violence or force, then i think you're very naive.
and i think that any society based on the notion that no one will use force can not work.
i think that the threat of some sort of force is the only thing that will uphold any contract or agreement. i.e. the reason why person X owns this big piece of nice land is because he has the means to defend it.
i think this is the easiest way to show that anarchism isn't feasible rather than talking about economics that we don't understand. i think i've already outlined in detail why i think those things are true. furthermore, i feel like you've failed to address my fundamental points--how could markets control an army, or how they could prevent a powerful community from seizing a weaker territory, or that fundamentally markets will not solve depletion, blah blah blah.
if everyone was an angel and would be willing to bend over backwards, then obviously we wouldn't need government. i don't feel like the notion that people act out of their own best interest is all that suprising (considering it's one of the assumptions of economics). i don't feel like the scenarios i've described are unlikely considering the wars that have been fought over trade routes and resources in the past.
p.s. what he says about education is kind of false. our literacy rate is >99% not less than 90%. and you could look at the rarity of discoveries of the 19th and 18th century along with the fact that high school kids are able to rape the shit out of anything discovered during those time periods.
On March 12 2008 15:32 geometryb wrote: if you think that no one will use violence or force, then i think you're very naive.
and i think that any society based on the notion that no one will use force can not work.
I never said no one will use violence, what I said is that anyone who tried would likely (at least, more likely than in statist society) be stopped. Such an organization would lose customers and funding and would be fought against by other people and organizations.
i think that the threat of some sort of force is the only thing that will uphold any contract or agreement. i.e. the reason why person X owns this big piece of nice land is because he has the means to defend it.
Defense of property is crucial to anarcho-capitalism. I think this defense can be much better provided by a company that a person voluntarily enters into contract with then by a company that extorts people to protect property (how ironic the very idea of it is).
i think this is the easiest way to show that anarchism isn't feasible rather than talking about economics that we don't understand. i think i've already outlined in detail why i think those things are true. furthermore, i feel like you've failed to address my fundamental points--how could markets control an army, or how they could prevent a powerful community from seizing a weaker territory, or that fundamentally markets will not solve depletion, blah blah blah.
These points are not fundamental, they are secondary. The fundamental point is that government is evil. Just as slavery was an evil institution and had to be abolished- the question wasn't "where will the blacks work? What if they start acting violent?"- all those are of secondary importance to abolishing the institution.
To present again, the brief argument for anarchism from morality: Morality must be objective. If morality was subjective, then anyone could decide that it was moral for them to kill anyone else, and etc etc you have chaos. So morality must be objective. If morality is objective, then the one and by necessity only moral truth must be the nonaggression axiom; that it is never acceptable to initiate violence against anyone else ('initiation' implying that it is okay to use violence in self-defense). This is one and the same as the right to be secure in ones property. The reason this can be the only moral absolute is because to claim anything else as a moral right will out of necessity infringe on the nonaggression principle. Say, for example, you wish to claim that education is a right for everyone. If someone can't afford an education, you would then be permissing them to use violence to force others to fund their education. And you lose property rights as an objective moral truth, and thus throw them into the realm of subjectivity. But why should your subjective judgment reign supreme? Because *you* decide it should? You can't logically decide that your judgment is the best, unless you want to make the case for a totalitarian dictatorship controlled by you. So you must admit that no ones subjective morality can reign over anyone elses, and you are back into the spot of justifying that anyone can do anything if they personally deem it to be moral. So the conclusion that must be accepted is that the nonaggression principle, the right to be secure in ones property, is the only moral truth, and it cannot be infringed upon. Any form of government is by necessity an infringement on this moral truth, therefore any form of government is immoral.
So that's the important stuff. To answer your questions, the market could control an army the same way the government can, minus the use of extortion to fund it. If a powerful community tried to seize a weaker one, the weaker one would fight back or call in others who would want to help the weaker state since an aggressive state (ala Nazi Germany) cannot be appeased, it must be dealt with. As for depletion, I'm not sure what you mean. And I would also note that statism has failed to prevent communities from engaging in hostilities and from using an army only for defensive purposes.
if everyone was an angel and would be willing to bend over backwards, then obviously we wouldn't need government. i don't feel like the notion that people act out of their own best interest is all that suprising (considering it's one of the assumptions of economics). i don't feel like the scenarios i've described are unlikely considering the wars that have been fought over trade routes and resources in the past.
Even if you assume (against all empirical precedent) that everyone is is pure evil, how does it make any sense to give a small group of these people virtually unlimited power to use violence against everyone else in the form of taxation, and allow their moral judgments to dictate law for everyone else? Do you see how that's just asking to introduce more corruption and problems? Politicians don't just fall from the sky free of human nature. They are just as self-interested as everyone else, and they are likely to be filthy liars as well if they have managed to become successful politicians.
hurricane katrina and the evacuation pretty much created an anarchic environment absent of government. were people like, "let's set up DARs and mutually beneficial trade." No, they were like "let's loot walmart" obviously people want resources they don't have so they steal them! why trade for something when you could take it by force?
perhaps walmart found a private army to defend its stores. is it more beneficial to them to leave it as defense or would they use it to take from other stores?
perhaps walmart controlled the only supplies of food. would it be more beneficial to other people to band together, try and kill walmart defenders, and steal the food or to trade with walmart? what if the people were poor and had nothing to offer?
would the private army defending the stores gain more by seizing control of the stores or by simply defending it? you could make the argument that no one else would want to hire them after they do such a thing...but i would just say it happens once they reach the maximum number of defendable stores as in it can't possible defend any more stores. it's better for them to just seize the stores because they would still be serving the purpose of defense, but now the store and all its monies belongs to them. i will now add that there is no market mechanism that causes other defense "companies" to collude against it. in fact, it may be possible that they follow the example and seize the stores that they were defending.
courts are only good if they are able to enforce their rulings and to enforce their rulings they must hold more power than the people, which won't always be the case in anarchy. the ideal court would have an army to enforce its rulings, right? should justice only be available to those who can afford it? does that make it okay to steal from the poor, who can't afford to go to a court or a lawyer?
anyhow, i think it's wrong of anarchocapitalists to think that demand creates supply. just because i demand justice doesn't mean there will be a supply of courts. just because i demand police doesn't mean there will be police. just because i demand a time machine, doesn't mean there will be a time machines. etc.
==== democracy has worked out pretty well i think. ambition counters ambition? at least we have secure borders and police rather than debating whether or not there would be one or not. i'm actually fine with helping to pay for other people's education and food and medicine. but i don't think my arguments for that would be able to convince you because it's more of a value judgment than any thing theoritical.
On March 12 2008 18:16 geometryb wrote: hurricane katrina and the evacuation pretty much created an anarchic environment absent of government. were people like, "let's set up DARs and mutually beneficial trade." No, they were like "let's loot walmart" obviously people want resources they don't have so they steal them! why trade for something when you could take it by force?
perhaps walmart found a private army to defend its stores. is it more beneficial to them to leave it as defense or would they use it to take from other stores?
perhaps walmart controlled the only supplies of food. would it be more beneficial to other people to band together, try and kill walmart defenders, and steal the food or to trade with walmart? what if the people were poor and had nothing to offer?
would the private army defending the stores gain more by seizing control of the stores or by simply defending it? you could make the argument that no one else would want to hire them after they do such a thing...but i would just say it happens once they reach the maximum number of defendable stores as in it can't possible defend any more stores. it's better for them to just seize the stores because they would still be serving the purpose of defense, but now the store and all its monies belongs to them. i will now add that there is no market mechanism that causes other defense "companies" to collude against it. in fact, it may be possible that they follow the example and seize the stores that they were defending.
Obviously a region that is suddenly plunged into chaos by a natural disaster is going to be trouble. That is very different then a conscious movement toward anarcho-capitalism.
courts are only good if they are able to enforce their rulings and to enforce their rulings they must hold more power than the people, which won't always be the case in anarchy.
They don't need to hold more power than people, people just need to agree to abide by their rulings. What happens if someone doesn't? Well for one his PDA would stop protecting him since he is violating their rules (which would state that clients must agree to abide by arbitration) and the PDA of the client who took him to court would be able to forcibly recoup their losses. No other PDA would want to do business with the man who doesn't abide by the rulings, it would hurt their reputation signifigantly. And the local media would make it known to everyone that this person doesn't abide by arbitration.
the ideal court would have an army to enforce its rulings, right? should justice only be available to those who can afford it?
You mean kind of like how it is now? The court process is very expensive if you want to hire a good lawyer. Having a government betrays the ideals of justice from the get go by stealing from its citizens, its hypocritical to suggest we have such an institution to uphold justice.
does that make it okay to steal from the poor, who can't afford to go to a court or a lawyer?
No, it does not make stealing okay. Anyways, people like you (concerned citizens) would gladly pay for the defense services of poor people.
anyhow, i think it's wrong of anarchocapitalists to think that demand creates supply. just because i demand justice doesn't mean there will be a supply of courts. just because i demand police doesn't mean there will be police. just because i demand a time machine, doesn't mean there will be a time machines. etc.
Your third example is a dramatic aberration from the first two. We don't have time machines because the technology for them doesn't exist. Demand for courts and police does create the supply for them (well, theoretically demand and supply curves exist independent of each other, but for the actual product to be sold on the market, demand must exist).
==== democracy has worked out pretty well i think. ambition counters ambition? at least we have secure borders and police rather than debating whether or not there would be one or not.
What does 'ambition counters ambition' mean? And sure democracy has worked better than communism or fascism, that doesn't make it the best system by default.
i'm actually fine with helping to pay for other people's education and food and medicine. but i don't think my arguments for that would be able to convince you because it's more of a value judgment than any thing theoritical.
If you're fine paying for other peoples services, then good for you. Nobody would stop you from doing this in anarcho-capitalist society. The only difference is that people who don't want to pay for other peoples education, aggressive armies, the DEA, corrupt politicians, and all the government departments, would be allowed to opt out. Anarcho-capitalism just means that stealing would not be legal.
You should be able to find a flaw in my argument from morality if you believe democracy is a moral form of government. Have you? And you did not answer why it makes sense to give one group of evil people, who are professional liars, authority to restrict the freedoms of everyone else.
i don't see how the removal of government would result in anything different. would the conclusion be that anarchy can't handle natural disasters? that anarchy won't produce chaos? i think it's a fine example of what happens once the government leaves. i think i've done a pretty good job of showing how markets can't stop the use of force or violence through theoritical and historical examples. that the assumption in the video is bad is also false.
meh, i changed my mind. i don't want to pay for poor people's lawyers and courts and defense and no one can make me. in fact, i'll pay people to not pay the poor people so i can take their shit.
you said it yourself. demand and supply are different. demand does not create it's own supply. saying that because you want something so it will exist is a very big fallacy.
if you believe that people are rational and make decisions that benefit themselves, then it makes sense for people to trade certain freedoms for stability and security. obviously there's an incentive for government to appease it's people because otherwise there are rebellions. again, i am not arguing about whether government are immoral or moral but rather whether or not they are beneficial and necessary. in fact, i agree with you that governments are immoral. but i don't believe that immoral things are necessarily bad or that they won't happen. again, "if everyone was an angel, then we wouldn't need government" however, i think people are far from angels. furthermore, you could argue that any sort of punishment by a court is immoral because it is forcefully taking something away from someone, except it has a value judgment of which person is more deserving attached to the ruling. except that's beside the point.
courts are backed by communities. in little rock arkansas, the court ruled that schools had to be desegregated but the community did not want that. obviously, if the court has one decision but the person who lost the case dont want to abide by the ruling, then doesn't it need to send in the army? when the united states wanted to invade iraq, and the united nations was like hold on. but they couldn't do anything. court fairness means nothing when there's disproportionate power. so should courts only make popular decisions rather than wise ones?
just do a thought experiment where you gather up all the anti-government libertarians of the world, have them renounce their citizenships, and ship them (and enough resources to compensate them for their current assets just to be fair) to a deserted island. what do you think will happen?....how will they decide who gets the best fishing spots? the most fertile land? the mines? my answer and the historical answer is through force.
based on the video and the article, libertarians do not believe in force and can not use force to deprive others of "property." they would not have been able to realize the power and wealth that came from the westward expansion and colonization. "i could use this land better but there's already someone there, shit." or "why should ted get the nice land while im stuck with shit" and stuff like that.
On March 13 2008 08:20 geometryb wrote: i don't see how the removal of government would result in anything different. would the conclusion be that anarchy can't handle natural disasters? that anarchy won't produce chaos? i think it's a fine example of what happens once the government leaves. i think i've done a pretty good job of showing how markets can't stop the use of force or violence through theoritical and historical examples. that the assumption in the video is bad is also false.
Obviously if you take out government and a giant hurricane comes through that tears everyones shit up when no one is ready for it its gonna cause chaos. You haven't shown that markets can't stop the use of force. You've taken some guesses at what might happen and I've told you why I think you are wrong. Obviously it can't prevent everyone from using force, but neither can a state society.
meh, i changed my mind. i don't want to pay for poor people's lawyers and courts and defense and no one can make me. in fact, i'll pay people to not pay the poor people so i can take their shit.
Like you can't pay off a cop now... It's not the people who are changing, it's just whether they are allowed to steal from citizens thats changing. But a private company couldn't afford to have a poor reputation, whereas the public police can continue extorting citizens regardless of whether or not it is corrupt. In stateless society, people like yourself who are concerned about the poor can continue to pay for them.
you said it yourself. demand and supply are different. demand does not create it's own supply. saying that because you want something so it will exist is a very big fallacy.
I said the demand and supply curves exist independently of each other, which is true. But in order for a good to actually be produced, there has to be demand for it. Demand causes goods to be supplied. Ipods are sold because there is a demand for them, same with cars, food, houses, healthcare, education, and any other economic good you can think of. Security is no different. The reason your local supermarket doesn't sell sauted dung beatles is because in there isn't much demand for them.
if you believe that people are rational and make decisions that benefit themselves, then it makes sense for people to trade certain freedoms for stability and security.
There's no need to trade freedom for security. There is no logical bridge here connecting your premise to your conclusion. You don't need to force people to pay for security; peoples demand for security demonstrates that people will pay for security. And if a person doesn't want to use your security forces, you have no right to put a gun to his head and demand he pay for them (this is what government does).
obviously there's an incentive for government to appease it's people because otherwise there are rebellions.
Things have to get pretty awful before there's rebellion. Congress has passed all sorts if immoral legislation such as allowing slavery for a while and school segregation, outlawing drugs, starting a war with iraq, etc. Not to mention all the government scandals that make the news every couple weeks. But we all just sit and take it. Private firms would never be able to pull that type of shit and get away with it. They would lose too many customers.
again, i am not arguing about whether government are immoral or moral but rather whether or not they are beneficial and necessary. in fact, i agree with you that governments are immoral. but i don't believe that immoral things are necessarily bad or that they won't happen.
If immoral things aren't bad, then how are they immoral? Or if you're willing to trade morality for "security", that is if you really think the only way you can be secure is to have a coercive monopoly steal from everyone, why not just go all the way and move to a fascist state? Then you'll have more government security then you can shake a stick at. The truth is that this fear is baseless. Governments are not necessary; immorality is not necessary. Our goal should be to eliminate immorality, not foster it.
[Pulls out gun]"Gimme your money! It's for your own good!" Please...
again, "if everyone was an angel, then we wouldn't need government" however, i think people are far from angels.
And again I say, if people aren't angels, why do you elevate a few to the levle of power where they are legally allowed to steal and restrict the freedoms of the other citizens? Even democracies are equally ridiculous; democracies are 51% of the people giving .01% of the people the power to trample the rights of 100% of the people, all the while stealing from them and preventing any competitors from working.
furthermore, you could argue that any sort of punishment by a court is immoral because it is forcefully taking something away from someone, except it has a value judgment of which person is more deserving attached to the ruling. except that's beside the point.
If a court issues a punishment, it's not initiating force; its using force in defense of someone who was aggressed against the initiator of the aggression.
courts are backed by communities. in little rock arkansas, the court ruled that schools had to be desegregated but the community did not want that. obviously, if the court has one decision but the person who lost the case dont want to abide by the ruling, then doesn't it need to send in the army?
Usually two security guards would be sufficient. You seem to think that private security would be inferior to coerced security (mafia style). The free market is the most efficient producer of any good that people demand, security included. There is no reason an army funded voluntarily would be less effective then an army funded through theft.
when the united states wanted to invade iraq, and the united nations was like hold on. but they couldn't do anything. court fairness means nothing when there's disproportionate power. so should courts only make popular decisions rather than wise ones?
Not sure what this has to do with your argument, but no, courts should make wise decisions.
just do a thought experiment where you gather up all the anti-government libertarians of the world, have them renounce their citizenships, and ship them (and enough resources to compensate them for their current assets just to be fair) to a deserted island. what do you think will happen?....how will they decide who gets the best fishing spots? the most fertile land? the mines? my answer and the historical answer is through force.
The general rule of thumb is that when going to a place where no one owns anything, the first person to touch something becomes its owner. I'm not sure why this is relevant. Most things here are already privately owned, there would be no need to perform some kind of mad scramble. The police would probably break off into factions and companies would enter a bidding war to buy the different security services so they could then sell it out to the public like insurance.
based on the video and the article, libertarians do not believe in force and can not use force to deprive others of "property." they would not have been able to realize the power and wealth that came from the westward expansion and colonization. "i could use this land better but there's already someone there, shit." or "why should ted get the nice land while im stuck with shit" and stuff like that.
Yea you're right, if the first Americans practiced libertarian ideals, they wouldn't have gone on a Native American killing spree.
Podcast addressing the inefficiencies of government- "People can solve their own problems without having the state gun pointed at their neck":
rather than saying i have taken guesses at what may happen, it would be more accurate to say that i have given examples of what has happened in the past. in fact it sounds more like you are taking guesses at what's going to happen, unrealistically believing in best case scenarios that have little historical precedent. i have shown why theoritically armies will form and supported that with examples of that from the past. on the other hand, anarchocapitalists claim that they will not form and argue that with very oversimplified "well if shit happens, then this will happen and we won't have a problem." obviously, history has shown that "this didn't happen and there was a big problem."
i don't think it's unreasonable to think of states as players in an anarchy because there is no higher government to govern governments so i don't think it's unreasonable to treat each country as a person living in an anarchy (almost similar to treating a corporation as a person but not quite). obviously governments have the same goals as individuals also (profit/wealth maximization/security). i hope you'll agree with me on this. and states have been killing each other since forever.
immoral does not necessarily mean bad. the decision to drop the atomic bomb killing millions of innocent civilians was immoral. but the decision saved a large number of american lives. as a free market capitalist, you should be thinking more about profit/gain than moral/immoral. the belief that people won't do something because it's immoral and that immoral things won't exist is an assumption you shouldn't make.
====
perhaps i could explain the "social contract" thing in economics terms. there are always terms of trade and there's a range for those terms where an individual can still benefit. "oh, you're willing to give me 10$ great i'll make $9. oh you'll give me $2 i'll still make $1 oh you're not willing to give me anything? hten go away." based on that logic, no matter how oppressive or evil the government it to you, you still benefit from it. if you didn't, you would rebel or move somewhere else. you're not gaining as much as you could, but you're still gaining.
i guess a good example of supply and demand is: you demand an anarchic government. there is, however, no supply of anarchic governments. your demand for that type of government does not lead to anyone starting that kind of government for you to move there. OR i could argue that there is anarchic government in the form of deserted islands and remote areas, but no one moves there SO there is no demand for anarchic governments. so libertarians are just a bunch of bullshitters. if you and every other anarchocapitalist are so confident in your beliefs, why don't you take all your assets and move somewhere else? the fact that you don't means that you're willing to be oppressed by government which makes it a bit hypocritical.
if i lived in your world, i would touch everything first. also, i wouldn't be willing to pay someone to use their land just because they touched it first. it's relevant because there's a certain unfairness attached to this that i fail to see a resolution to without the use of force.
On March 14 2008 09:42 geometryb wrote: rather than saying i have taken guesses at what may happen, it would be more accurate to say that i have given examples of what has happened in the past. in fact it sounds more like you are taking guesses at what's going to happen, unrealistically believing in best case scenarios that have little historical precedent. i have shown why theoritically armies will form and supported that with examples of that from the past. on the other hand, anarchocapitalists claim that they will not form and argue that with very oversimplified "well if shit happens, then this will happen and we won't have a problem." obviously, history has shown that "this didn't happen and there was a big problem."
The problem with your examples though is that none of them have looked at an anarcho-capitalist society. New Orleans didn't just become anarcho-capitalist when Hurricane Katrina struck, it was plunged into chaos by the sudden elimination of order. The arguments for preventing state reemergence are not oversimplified, they are very logical. If you can bring up a specific argument against any point raised in this article, http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/06/stateless-dictatorships-how-free.html I would be happy to discuss it.
i don't think it's unreasonable to think of states as players in an anarchy because there is no higher government to govern governments so i don't think it's unreasonable to treat each country as a person living in an anarchy (almost similar to treating a corporation as a person but not quite). obviously governments have the same goals as individuals also (profit/wealth maximization/security). i hope you'll agree with me on this. and states have been killing each other since forever.
Right. But where you identify the problem as being the anarchical international structure, (and at this point you must logically propose world government, no?), I identify the problem as being the state.
immoral does not necessarily mean bad. the decision to drop the atomic bomb killing millions of innocent civilians was immoral. but the decision saved a large number of american lives.
That is still highly disputed to this day, and you have no idea how many Americans it may or may not have saved in comparison to the millions who were harmed by the dropping of it. I don't see it as being moral or good. This all sounds very Machiavellian though; are you an ends-justify-the-means type guy?
as a free market capitalist, you should be thinking more about profit/gain than moral/immoral. the belief that people won't do something because it's immoral and that immoral things won't exist is an assumption you shouldn't make.
My advocation for the free market comes from my moral principles. I believe the initiation of violence against another person is universally immoral. I never claimed that immoral things won't exis, but we should pursue the moral path where we can. If we have this immoral institution staring us in the face, holding all of us hostage, we should fight for freedom- not accept it just because "there's always gonna be immorality, so we might as well stop trying."
====
perhaps i could explain the "social contract" thing in economics terms. there are always terms of trade and there's a range for those terms where an individual can still benefit. "oh, you're willing to give me 10$ great i'll make $9. oh you'll give me $2 i'll still make $1 oh you're not willing to give me anything? hten go away." based on that logic, no matter how oppressive or evil the government it to you, you still benefit from it. if you didn't, you would rebel or move somewhere else. you're not gaining as much as you could, but you're still gaining.
The 'social contract' is bullshit. I don't enter into a social contract with government anymore than a shop owner enters into a social contract with the mafia for opening shop on 'their turf'. The only legitimate contracts are ones entered into voluntarily- social contract just means "you agree to this contract because I say you do".
i guess a good example of supply and demand is: you demand an anarchic government. there is, however, no supply of anarchic governments. your demand for that type of government does not lead to anyone starting that kind of government for you to move there.
Obviously it takes more than a few thousand people to carry out a project as large as abolishing the government! Apple wouldn't have made an ipod if only a couple hundred people wanted one.
OR i could argue that there is anarchic government in the form of deserted islands and remote areas, but no one moves there SO there is no demand for anarchic governments. so libertarians are just a bunch of bullshitters. if you and every other anarchocapitalist are so confident in your beliefs, why don't you take all your assets and move somewhere else? the fact that you don't means that you're willing to be oppressed by government which makes it a bit hypocritical.
lol, that's like saying to a shop owner who's store gets robbed: "If you don't sell your shop and move, you obviously don't mind being robbed." *I* shouldn't have to give up my rightfully owned property to live freely; it's the state that should have to give up its tactics of violence.
if i lived in your world, i would touch everything first. also, i wouldn't be willing to pay someone to use their land just because they touched it first. it's relevant because there's a certain unfairness attached to this that i fail to see a resolution to without the use of force.
You would touch everything first? Private property wouldn't go up for grabs. Ownership of private property is already established. The government jobs like mail delivery and security provisions would be taken up by private companies, who would then hire their own employees, probably many of the same ones that were previously working for the government. Government buildings would likely be auctioned off. --
I find it sickening that you can admit government is immoral but still condone it. This absurd delusion you have that if we didn't have an institution that will kill you for refusing to pay it or kill you for opening up a competing business, then we'd be in a real pickle! Clearly we can't be trusted to conduct business ourselves, we need to give a small group of people all the guns and all the power to pass law (cause ya know, they're public servants; they would never put their own interests first!) and let them dictate to us how we can conduct legitimate business as they continue to steal from us so they can pad their pockets.
EPT
)
