wouldn't the definition of an anarchocapitalist society be one without government? perhaps you could explain how the absence of government during hurricane katrina would be different from your society. there's nothing inherent about a natural disaster that creates chaos because it only creates the destruction of property. The people there still retained their property rights and they haven't changed except they have less stuff. There was supply (even though its lower) and demand and everything. or perhaps it would hinge on the notion that people are unwilling to be immoral, which is X_X.
The Secret Army: while 1 DRO can afford it in 10 years, 10 DROs can do it in 1 year.
Independantly Wealthy+Defense DROs: how would defense DROs grow? by having more men and more weapons to defend more peoples. this doesn't have to be secret at all. it would be raising an army in plain daylight. why didn't the rest of the world gang up on the united states during it's arms race? how were empires ever allowed to amass their armies?
The Question of profit: saying it's unprofitable doesn't make it unprofitable. it was profitable for GB to take over india and hongkong, for USA to take over indian territories, etc etc. also, the comments on that page are pretty good also.
world government have emerged (i guess you could think of it that way) when the roman empire conquered some gross portion of the world. likewise with the mongols. when you let states(the players in an anarchy) act rationally, there will not always be the means to prevent armies to use to conquer other states (the other players).
is Machevilian bad? if it was trading 1 american for 1 million japanese would it be worth it? 1 for 1? would you steal medicine from a pharmacy to save your sick daughter?
you always have the option of leaving your country. no one forces you to stay. there are many anarchic societies in the world, you could always move to an uncharted, unclaimed island. you would have all your assets with you so that you lose nothing and you would be completely unoppressed. and once you're on that island you can let supply and demand provide all the goods and services that you want. i think 5% of republicans supports ron paul, so there are maybe 7million guys just like you. somewhere out there, there's an island about the size of delaware. would you be willing to go there with 7million friends that share the same beliefs?
people voluntarily giving up power is never going to happen and it's against your morals to take it by force. so it's a bit tough for you to abolish government. but you could always move.
you're not giving up the property, the shop owner selling all of his stuff (he now has things worth everything he's ever produced and can be traded back for). he is giving up nothing except his citizenship. note that geographical location is part of his assets, the price of his shop reflects where it is.
well, in our case power is held by the people. there's a system of checks and balances so that the leaders and laws have to serve the interests of the poeple. furthermore, each person's vote counts the same if your rich or poor and minority rights are protected also. if people disapprove of their actions, they wouldn't be reelected. likewise, the only way to enforce the laws is through force. i think you agree with me on that? the government is a natural monopoly on force and law. and going by what you said earlier that monopolies are efficient, then that's good right?
you said that courts should always make wise decisions, but wouldn't free market courts (assuming that they exist) always make popular decisions because it's the community that gives them its authority and force. and also if they would need to make popular decisions in order for people to keep coming. note that popular decisions and wise decisions are not necessarily the same decision.
there's also the perspective of game theory. a coastal community will benefit from a giant wall that prevents big waves from crashing down on it when hurricanes come. how do we get people to pay for it? I want it, but i could always just let other people pay for it and then it would come for free and i benefit from it whether i use it or not. this will end in no one paying for it!
On March 15 2008 05:24 geometryb wrote: wouldn't the definition of an anarchocapitalist society be one without government? perhaps you could explain how the absence of government during hurricane katrina would be different from your society. there's nothing inherent about a natural disaster that creates chaos because it only creates the destruction of property. The people there still retained their property rights and they haven't changed except they have less stuff. There was supply (even though its lower) and demand and everything. or perhaps it would hinge on the notion that people are unwilling to be immoral, which is X_X.
The state didn't disappear in New Orleans. There were still police, they just had to spend most of their effort rescuing people so they couldn't be policing crime as efficiently. This has nothing to do with anarchocapitalism.
The Secret Army: while 1 DRO can afford it in 10 years, 10 DROs can do it in 1 year.
10 DROs would still run in to all the problems 1 DRO would, including having to convince their customers that this is a good idea, which is a very hard sell to anyone who isn't completely gullible. Furthermore, a new DRO could arise that doesn't try to amass a secret army and thus wouldn't have to charge as much and it would get all the customers.
Independantly Wealthy+Defense DROs: how would defense DROs grow? by having more men and more weapons to defend more peoples. this doesn't have to be secret at all. it would be raising an army in plain daylight. why didn't the rest of the world gang up on the united states during it's arms race? how were empires ever allowed to amass their armies?
To raise an army would require raising rates, and getting all your customers to believe that you wouldn't turn the army on them. Both these issues would cause its customers to join another DRO.
The Question of profit: saying it's unprofitable doesn't make it unprofitable. it was profitable for GB to take over india and hongkong, for USA to take over indian territories, etc etc. also, the comments on that page are pretty good also.
It was profitable for the government, not for the taxpayers. Government already has a taxpayer funded army. A DRO would have to build an army from customer funded money, and if it decided to launch a military campaign that would cause rates to soar, which would lose it customers and then profit and then it wouldn't be able to fund its aggressive war.
world government have emerged (i guess you could think of it that way) when the roman empire conquered some gross portion of the world. likewise with the mongols.
Those aren't world governments by any stretch. But you didn't answer my question- do you support a one world government?
when you let states(the players in an anarchy) act rationally, there will not always be the means to prevent armies to use to conquer other states (the other players).
Right. States can't prevent war.
is Machevilian bad? if it was trading 1 american for 1 million japanese would it be worth it? 1 for 1? would you steal medicine from a pharmacy to save your sick daughter?
I was asking whether you yourself are a consequentialist. Myself I am conflicted as I can see arguments for both deontological and teleological ethics, but I think anarcho-capitalism is superior from either standpoint. It is my belief that capitalism has been the driving force behind technological advances that have helped all of society, and I think any hinderance to capitalism can only hurt progress.
you always have the option of leaving your country. no one forces you to stay. there are many anarchic societies in the world, you could always move to an uncharted, unclaimed island. you would have all your assets with you so that you lose nothing and you would be completely unoppressed. and once you're on that island you can let supply and demand provide all the goods and services that you want. i think 5% of republicans supports ron paul, so there are maybe 7million guys just like you. somewhere out there, there's an island about the size of delaware. would you be willing to go there with 7million friends that share the same beliefs?
So to go back to my example, if I'm the shop owner and my store gets robbed and I go complain to you the chief of police, your response would be; "if you don't like being robbed, go move somewhere else." Ok, great.
But please don't confuse me with being a Ron Paul supporter. I support anarchism, not minarchism.
people voluntarily giving up power is never going to happen and it's against your morals to take it by force. so it's a bit tough for you to abolish government. but you could always move.
Violence is justified in self defense. That is why the nonaggression principle maintains that the initiation of violence against another is wrong. The government maintains its power through violence against its citizens, so people would be justified to abolish government using force.
you're not giving up the property, the shop owner selling all of his stuff (he now has things worth everything he's ever produced and can be traded back for). he is giving up nothing except his citizenship. note that geographical location is part of his assets, the price of his shop reflects where it is.
Again with the "If you don't like it gtfo" argument. This is the worst excuse for government aggression.
well, in our case power is held by the people.
Roffles. People aren't allowed to rob other people. That ability is exclusive to government.
there's a system of checks and balances so that the leaders and laws have to serve the interests of the poeple.
The checks and balances are all within government. They don't protect the interest of the people, they protect the interests of those in government.
furthermore, each person's vote counts the same if your rich or poor and minority rights are protected also. if people disapprove of their actions, they wouldn't be reelected.
Yea, it's a good thing we get to vote on who gets to steal our money and what they can spend the stolen money on.
likewise, the only way to enforce the laws is through force. i think you agree with me on that? the government is a natural monopoly on force and law. and going by what you said earlier that monopolies are efficient, then that's good right?
Government is not a natural monopoly. A natural monopoly can only arise on the free market. Government is a coercive monopoly. It funds itself through theft and it jails any competition. This is guaranteed to be inefficient. This is also the ONLY difference between government and anarchocapitalism.
you said that courts should always make wise decisions, but wouldn't free market courts (assuming that they exist) always make popular decisions because it's the community that gives them its authority and force. and also if they would need to make popular decisions in order for people to keep coming. note that popular decisions and wise decisions are not necessarily the same decision.
The popular decision will usually be popular because it's the right decision. If only a minority of people think the decision should go the other way, there's a good chance it's the wrong decision. But yes, there are some cases where a court won't make a wise decision if it makes all its customers upset. However, this is still better than a government court which has no more incentive than a private court to make a wise decision. Since their salaries are still paid by stealing from all the citizens, they can make a ruling based on anything as small as the lawyers attitude (my dad is a lawyer and I can tell you that things like attitude make a huge difference). The private judge is pressured to rule in favor of the people- who, by in large, will want justice. The pubic judge can rule on whatever grounds he wishes to.
there's also the perspective of game theory. a coastal community will benefit from a giant wall that prevents big waves from crashing down on it when hurricanes come. how do we get people to pay for it? I want it, but i could always just let other people pay for it and then it would come for free and i benefit from it whether i use it or not. this will end in no one paying for it!
And you've hit upon the public goods theory, which the entire OP is dedicated to disproving.
And I still haven't heard you attempt to justify why, if humans are too inept or evil to conduct themselves, it makes any sense to give a tiny group of humans the power to steal money and pass law for all the other humans, as though these people; these elected officers are any less susceptible to corruption or self-interest than the other 99% of people. Have you seen what governments do with power? All they do is pass more and more laws restricting your liberty, raise taxes (or spend on defecit, which your children are going to end up paying for), and spending more of your money to build up armies so that they can launch wars and then all their buddies like haliburton and kbr get rich. But you think it's okay to throw someone in jail who doesn't want to pay for this.
just in case you forgot how our government works, the people elect congressmen every 2 years, senators 6, president 4, not sure about governors and mayors. anyways, if the constituents do not like the laws their elected official passed or the things they did, then he would not be reelected. he would not stay in power. the system tries to align the will of the people with what that of the elected official. i don't know if you really believe what you said, but the iraq war happened because most of the country was willing to go to war during that time, not because they wanted to give haliburton contracts. the president still needed the approval of congress and the people.
perhaps you're right. maybe law would be better if it was a big popularity contest. but, i'm not so sure about that. the beauty of government backed courts is that (my knowledge is actually only limited to supreme court stuff) judges don't have to worry about reelection or anything and can make decisions without worrying about shit. the judges have to be congressionally approved so that they must've had a good history. and they have no means of enforcing their rulings. if was a very terrible ruling, then the executive branch would just be like no. but again, i don't think there's a right answer. i guess court rulings by popularity would work too (i think that's what they did in athens a long long time ago).
if a shop owner was getting robbed and i couldn't stop it, i would advise them to move somewhere else. i think that's the smartest thing to do. i don't see anything wrong with moving some place that has what you want.
the state effectively disappeared in new orleans. no one to arrest you for breaking the law. no one to force you to pay sales tax and stuff like that. there are probably many other parts of the world associated with weak/no government that are very unstable rather than what you describe in your stuff.
i would just like to end by saying you and many other anarchists make very serious assumptions. i would rather you state the assumptions that you make rather than trying to be like "of course, things will turn out great"
1. you assume perfect competition with many firms. there's no reason for this to happen. in fact, there are very few industries that run under perfect competition.
2. you assume monopolies can't form. you assume microsoft(kind of), at&t, standard oil, etc can't form. or you argue that they are coercive monopolies that only form because of the government. that isn't true. government had nothing to do with protecting their monopolies. in fact, it was the government that trustbusted them.
3. you assume that there is an incentive against collusion and mergers. i don't there is.
4. you assume that demand creates supply. i think we went over this. i really don't think is true.
On March 19 2008 13:12 geometryb wrote: just in case you forgot how our government works, the people elect congressmen every 2 years, senators 6, president 4, not sure about governors and mayors. anyways, if the constituents do not like the laws their elected official passed or the things they did, then he would not be reelected. he would not stay in power. the system tries to align the will of the people with what that of the elected official. i don't know if you really believe what you said, but the iraq war happened because most of the country was willing to go to war during that time, not because they wanted to give haliburton contracts.
The Iraq war happened because Bush lied about the intelligence he received. And I never said that we went to war because of halliburton; but it is clear that they have profited enormously from this.
the president still needed the approval of congress and the people.
The president only needs to approval of *some* people to spend *everyone's* money. Do you not see how immoral that is? It's like if me you and Fred Flintstone were sitting around at McDonalds and we each had a meal in front of us. Then you decided to hold a vote, and you and Fred both vote to steal my french fries with me being the only dissenting vote. I complain saying that you guys can't just vote to take my food from me, and you reply "this is democracy, it's the fairest way."
perhaps you're right. maybe law would be better if it was a big popularity contest. but, i'm not so sure about that. the beauty of government backed courts is that (my knowledge is actually only limited to supreme court stuff) judges don't have to worry about reelection or anything and can make decisions without worrying about shit. the judges have to be congressionally approved so that they must've had a good history. and they have no means of enforcing their rulings. if was a very terrible ruling, then the executive branch would just be like no. but again, i don't think there's a right answer. i guess court rulings by popularity would work too (i think that's what they did in athens a long long time ago).
If a judge in a private court makes a clearly biased decision, the defendant can appeal it. Private courts, unlike government courts, don't have the right to make laws that use violence against innocent people. The role of private courts is not to make law, but to find it. Public courts are highly politicized. Since judges, through government, have claimed the authority to rule on matters they have no business ruling on, such as what someone does in their personal life that only affects them, or what consenting individuals choose to do without using violence against any unwilling third parties, judges inject their personal opinion about what others should or shouldn't be able to do and enforce it with violence.
The worst part about democracy though isn't the judges rulings, it's government officials ability to pass law. Morality is decided by taking a vote. If enough people decide activity x is immoral, then no one is allowed to do that otherwise they will be arrested. It's like my McDonalds example. Anything can be banned as long as the people in power vote on it.
if a shop owner was getting robbed and i couldn't stop it, i would advise them to move somewhere else. i think that's the smartest thing to do. i don't see anything wrong with moving some place that has what you want.
You're missing the point. It's not about whether moving is or isn't a good idea for them; it's about you and others using the 'love it or leave it' argument to try and portray me as a hypocrite, claiming that if I don't leave then I am consenting to it. If the shop owner refuses to move it doesn't mean he condones getting robbed.
the state effectively disappeared in new orleans. no one to arrest you for breaking the law. no one to force you to pay sales tax and stuff like that.
In New Orleans, security was impossible to manage because everything was flooded and infastructure was crippled. Neither private nor public security is going to be effective in such a situation.
there are probably many other parts of the world associated with weak/no government that are very unstable rather than what you describe in your stuff.
Great argument.
i would just like to end by saying you and many other anarchists make very serious assumptions. i would rather you state the assumptions that you make rather than trying to be like "of course, things will turn out great"
Obviously we're making assumptions, you can't mathematically prove that anarchism will work.
1. you assume perfect competition with many firms. there's no reason for this to happen. in fact, there are very few industries that run under perfect competition.
I did? Where did I assume perfect competition?
2. you assume monopolies can't form. you assume microsoft(kind of), at&t, standard oil, etc can't form. or you argue that they are coercive monopolies that only form because of the government. that isn't true. government had nothing to do with protecting their monopolies. in fact, it was the government that trustbusted them.
Wrong again. I never assumed they can't form. I said they would be unlikely to form, and I also said that if they did it would be because no other firm can provide a better product at a better price.
3. you assume that there is an incentive against collusion and mergers. i don't there is.
Mergers, no. Collusion, yes; any new firm could come along and make a killing by selling the same product at a lower price than agreed upon by the colluders.
4. you assume that demand creates supply. i think we went over this. i really don't think is true.
No, I said that supply exists independently of demand but in order for the good to actually be produced, there must be demand for it. A good is not going to be supplied if there's no demand for it- there would be no profit to be made. A good will only be supplied if there is demand for it. The more demand, the more of the good produced. What do you think causes goods to be produced if not demand for them?
i'm done.
That's a shame, I was hoping you would finally get to my point about why it makes sense to give one small group of people the power to strip freedom from the entire population, or if you could address my morality argument about how you can justify extortion at gun point.
I don't know if you've been watching any of the videos I'm posting, but here is an important one that highlights one of the most basic flaws of democracy, and also how democracy hurts the poor. It's shorter than most of the others too: Helping the Poor: Analyzing a Banana Republic
On March 20 2008 01:54 Heggie wrote: Captain Murphy, presumably before there was a point before the rise of modern civilisation where mankind lived in a state of anarchy?
From this state, governments have arisen.
What reason do you have to believe that this process would not occur again, and instead the result would be magical-an-cap-happy-land?
This has been addressed numerous times throughout the thread.
EPT
