Attackdonkey

Minarchism.

 This is a reply to the brain police's article "Minarchis: Ethically Self-contradictory"  It just wouldn't be fair to leave a 3 page comment. so here it is. I'm pretty new to a real debate about anarchist so if I mis represent any ideas please let me know. again here is a link to the article I'm responding to...

http://mises.com/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2007/11/27/minarchism-ethically-self-contradictary.aspx 

 


 I'm not an anarchist, and not even a sympathizer, but I can nod my head at a point or two unlike a writing by a socialist or neo-con.

    But lets get a few things straight. the analogy you present at the beginning is wholly ill-representing the min-archist's ideas. It is not that we are simply robbed, but given a valuable service and then being robbed. I think there is a wide range of disagreement on just how valuable these services are, but even you, by expecting the service to one day be carried out by private companies. would anyone really abstain from receiving emergency assistance? or justice after being  assaulted?
The second complaint you might have; is that under our current system people who do not pay for a service reap its benefits. And that is natural, I would not pay for the internet if someone else would pay for it and I could get it for free. but remember that in business a owner can charge a dollar for you to have a cup of coffee and give the same coffee away for free. Now a person does not go into business in a field simply for money, at least not always. most doctors and surgeons really do want to help people. and I believe if justice were privatized it would be dispensed to many who could not, or had unwisely decided not to pay. this idea is compounded by the fact that a person who burglarizes me one day, would be much more likely to burglarize you tomorrow! and so it would be in a company's interests to catch a bad guy whenever possible regardless as to whether the victim is a customer or not. My point here is that the only real differences between the min-archist  and the anarchist is that those individuals who are really concerned with crime and justice would pay more and those who are not as interested or don't have the money would not pay at all instead of just a little bitty bit. In essences the result would be the same as donations.
 
    I can let the tariffs slide! tariffs are an end around sales tax. It is the same as the corporate income tax or contractor paying income tax. its a joke. any smart business man, whether a contractor, corporate CEO or exporter is going to be smart enough to pass on his costs to the consumer. a cabinet builder doesn't buy the lumber, the consumer does, so it is with Income tax and tariffs.
On the other side, I have often time jewed a store owner to lower his price so that after the sales tax is added on It is the same as the original asking price.

    Now lets talk about monopolies. if there were two companies in the business of “law” enforcement. How would there be real competition? Would they try to drive one another out of business? And if so how? Would the Loomis Fargo company kidnap criminals out of the hands of the Pinkerton police company? I don’t think so, again people do things because they enjoy it and believe in it. And therefore would work hard and try to increase efficiency in keeping people safe. In every situation I believe there would be a merger. And this might get scary, if the CEO expands his business across an entire region or even the country, did we just trade democracy for anarchy for a dictatorship?

    Another Basic question is who keeps the police in check? This idea of loosly organized non government protection is basically how gangs started. But then they did whatever they want? If the Bloods were around still but we did away with the government... well I see a way out of it through force, public uprising and violence. But wouldn’t you rather not have to go through all that?
Finally there is the issue of the customer. Lets talk about marginal returns. If the criminal company is doing a good job on all counts except I don’t think he is punishing arsonist harshly enough it is very unlikely that I could Start up another company and compete against the one already established. It might very well be that a lot of people feel the same way as I do. But, Pinkerton gets it right 95% of the time, so who wants to raise a fuss over 5%. They would prefer that be handled too, but it isn’t that big of a deal, people have other things to worry about, and no one is so concerned to invest the time and money, and giving up their current occupation to start up and run a competing company. But! Through a representative government, a Judge can be deposed relatively easily and you can even run as a judge. So through a government. Everyone has a better say in how the necessities of life are carried out.

    Lastly. The Anarchist is not going to get anywhere with abolition of the government. As of now the Min Archist and the Anarchist are fighting the same battle. It seems like 20% of people in America are working for the government in one way or another. Maybe more if we talk about the contractors sub contractors and the people who make money by selling to them. Eat an elephant one bite at a time. Fight socialism and big government by voting for small government. And once it is small and only a few people work for the government and it is feasible for the government’s job to be taken over by companies... then we can really have a debate and get into the nitty gritty. Until then to talk about anarchy is just whistlin’ in the wind. 

 

 

 

Posted: Thu, Nov 29 2007 8:01 PM by Attackdonkey | with 10 comment(s) |

Comments

Brainpolice said:

Thanks for the response. I'm willing to leave a long comment. Some points:

1. My article was from a purely ethical perspective, while your response seems to be from more of an economic and pragmatic one. I'll try to respond to some of your concerns in either case, while keeping the ethical perspective. My responses will therefore probably appear quite evasive, being the non-consequentialist that I am.

2. The issue is that robbery is taking place in the first place. If a robber donates their stolen goods to charity, that does not justify their robbery. I also think you have the order of events backwards: the "valuable" service could not have come to be without previous robbery. Furthermore, the value of the service is irrelevant to the question of wether or not the means towards obtaining that service can be ethically justified.

3. The 2nd complaint should be rephrased as "Joe is made, under the threat of force, to pay for Jack's police protection". This is in fact "universalized" to an extent so that everyone within a given jurisdiction is forcibly paying for a quotal share of eachother's police protection. In other words, it is forced wealth redistribution, and I fail to see how this would not apply to police, courts and defense as much as it would to healthcare, education and welfare. The principle is the same.

4. I fail to see how the fact that a buisinessman can pass the costs onto the consumer is a justification for the initial act of taxing goods flowing between territories involved in tariffs. And my article's point about sales taxation stands. It is a rare phenomenon indeed that you could haggle a storeowner into charging you the pre-tax price, and this still would not negate the initially forced nature of the tax.

5. My point was about coercive territorial monopolies, which all states are. In order to be consistant with the non-aggression principle, in order for a buisiness to control such a large chunk of territory it would have to either (1) homestead previously unused land or (2) purchase it from willing sellers, and I don't see how an entire country of people would voluntarily sell off their homes and land property. States, however, come into existance and maintain that existance because of (1) land theft (2) barriers to entry to unused land and (3) purchasing land with stolen funds. So my problem with the state, once again, is an ethical one.

6. Gangs exist in large part because of prohibition. Remember, a black market is not the result of a free market. It is the consequence of the outlawing of a free market in a particular area. In either case, who keeps the police in check now? The police? The very same institution that the police are a part of? It surely does not make sense. External competition is a far better check then anything internal to the same institution. See my other blog post "Checks and Balances: Two Kinds" for a more expansive explaination.

7. I have no doubt that minarchists and anarchists can be allies at least in the present. The fundamental question, however, has to do with the ethical legitimacy of the state in the first place, and wether or not political participation is empirically efficient as a means towards eroding that legitimately or reducing the state's power. The latter question is still being debated by many anarchists, to my personal dismay.

# November 30, 2007 1:45 PM

kdnc said:

"wether or not political participation is empirically efficient as a means towards eroding that legitimately or reducing the state's power. The latter question is still being debated by many anarchists, to my personal dismay."

To the extent that you really believe this, you should stop posting on this and any other site and you should seriously consider refraining from sharing your ideas with anyone since all such activity is by definition political. In fact, just thinking consciously about your ideas comes dangerously close to political participation. I suggest you stop doing that too just to be on the safe side.

# December 3, 2007 11:55 AM

Brainpolice said:

KDNC:

I believe this is a disingenuous arguement. When I say political participation I refer to voting, running for office, lobbying the government and such. I'm refering to relatively direct* participation in the government's activities that can be avoided (unless you live in Australia, voting can be avoided; it is not compulsory). You're refering to something else, and things that cannot be avoided (thinking, reading, writting).

If you cannot make an adequate distinction between the private sphere of life and direct* involvement in the government's activites, I don't know if I have much else to say to you. Just let it be said that to accuse libertarians and anarchists of hypocrisy and voluntary political participation for, say, driving on the public roads is disingenous.

# December 4, 2007 5:16 PM

Attackdonkey said:

2.

my first response to this is that to put ethics aside in so far as taxation is concerned... it provides for much better and much more efficient ethical order. what I mean is that if you are so concerned about ethics that you can not allow any type of taxation, then you will have an ethical society so far as there is no tax, but that is all. in all other areas there is nothing to keep ethical structure. I know this is not a very strong arguement, that its wide open I am already aware of potential attacks against it. and that there is a mean slippery slope that leads down a pit to tyrany and subjugation.

  All I can argue is that it is in the intrest of liberty to give this small piece. otherwise we are at the mercy of those stronger than us, and that even if a man is strong he must have heightened sensitivity towards tresspassers. is a person more free if he is chained by the need to guard his belongings and keep constant watch over his family, but he pays no tax?

3. may it be remembered that JOE is not only paying for Jack's protection, but for his own! furthermore. I have already illustrated that in a pritized security system. The policemen, having entered their occupation because they are intrested in Justice. would not allow a house to be burglarized simply because the resident or owner of the house is not a subscriber to their service. nothing in so far as "redistribution of wealth" is lost through taxes, for the same would happen when privatized. and further it is also in the intrest of both the police comany and the subscriber for the police to bring justice to the noxious fellow who assults a poor man who does not subscribe. the difference here is that the benifit to the company and the rich is direct and instant. whereas I benifit nothing as to whether you have cancer treatment. but to some degree you must realize you are paying for the medical care of the poor. because again in an anachy, doctors (who are concerned with the health of people) would see, and even now do, patients who are unable to pay, and they are charged nothing. and I know this to be true from personal experience.

4. I am not arguing with you over tarriffs. only pointing out their flaws. tarriffs are one of the worst forms of taxes and was at the root of our failed revolution almost 150 years ago. it is a tax in no way equally shared by the citizens. you must realize that under a government one would desire that the cost be administered fairly? we are argueing if it should be collected at all. but if the answer is yes, it must be fair.  As for sales tax... all I was pointing out is that the store owner can pay the tax or the consumer pays the tax... but in away this is one of the better ways of taxing, as far as keeping it low, because if Oklahoma city's taxes are higher than Moore's I can simply drive a few miles south, and buy from them!

5.Maybe you missed it. police protection is not a matter of competition, except in price. but because it is only in price, how is it that the varying police companies would not unite for mutual aid? it makes no sense that they would not exchange information and work together. and thus would begin to share their profiets and eventually agree upon an average cost and then merge.and even if they didn't offcally merge, there would be a only 1 policy or mind set.

I think the problem here is that you say a police company would petition for the subscription of a neighborhood or town... but I say this is just welfare, and if this is the case there is no difference than "redistribution of wealth" those with money would be paying for the guy down the street who had no money. for your arguement to survive it would have to be based on an individual subscriber policy, but then that would not succeed in any measure past what the government does as I have demonstrated.

6.gangs were orignially formed to protect people from unorgainzed crime. like the black panthers. and latter the crips. what I mean is that there is a potential for extortion. the customer cancells his subscription to the service, and the police company says, well we need your support...you should really pay for protection, or something bad might happen. and they might send one guy under cover to break a window or something. incouraging the company or person to pay up. now the checks in governmental law enforcement is effective to the degree it is because of the rule of law. the heads of the police station respect the law, and the judiciary. there would be no reason for Pinkerton to respect Loomis after Pinkerton has become corrupt. they might be able to check the corrupt company, but it would be at the cost of (gang) war! and this would be bad... in fact thats how the bloods came about, as a check on the crips...

7.At least in the present? I hope so! no one can make the case against the United State Geological Department better than you can! I believe it is important for even anarchists to be involved in the government, to vote, and run for office. maybe if it were 1805 and the government were small it would be a different story, but we are heading towards full blown socialism. there are people all over facebook, that want to ban everything from guns, to smoking, to transfats, to SUVs. your liberty, your hapiness may be hindered by a government. but certainly it is going to get worse and more unpleasant if the anrchists sit out the fight. you must campaign for a smaller government and see government reduction realized. People must see that it is not the governments role and more importantly that things can be done by some one other than the state before they consider that justice and common defense can be performed by someone other than the government.

8. there are also issues with collecting evidence. how would a private company gain access to a person's house to conduct a search for evidence? would it be through pure force, intimidation? and who does this non customer who is being searched appeal to? and what happens when the company oversteps its bounds? and who decides that? it seems the judiciary is the weakest area for anarchy.

if you answer that the police company would have judges? its pretty clear that would not be fair. and if there is another judicial company, who pays them? and of course there would be competing judicial companies, but how would they compete, harshness of sentances? more guilty verdicts? would that not lead to an unjust court system? and then the question is who gets to decide which judiciary criminals would go before? remember it couldn't be based on geography because that is "wealth distribution." its just gets uglier and uglier the more you look at it.

# December 6, 2007 3:12 PM

Brainpolice said:

I don't mean to come off as evasive or mean, but I'm going to ignore the bulk of your post because my entire point was precisely about ethics and you are harping on technical and pragmatic questions.

I really don't understand what you're saying about wealth redistribution. Any economic exchange is "wealth redistribution". But I don't think you're understanding what I mean. I'm talking about forced wealth redistribution. This is inherent in the state's services. It is not on the market. There are wealth transfers on the free market, yes, but not forced wealth redistribution. You have no choice not to pay your taxes. Market prices function far differently from a system of taxation and spending. You are not forced* to pay for your own and anyone else's police protection in a free market. You are in a statist police system.

# December 6, 2007 3:52 PM

Brainpolice said:

"As of now, I have no ethical defense of the state, but can only say that it is a necissary evil.

and we must keep it as small and limited as possible."

Okay. Well that pretty much brings the debate to a standstill then. My entire purpose is to argue for the inherently unethical nature of the state.

# December 6, 2007 3:53 PM

Attackdonkey said:

I was trying to delete that last one before you saw it.

oh well. I think its pretty much true. I think as far as pure ethics, and only ethics are concerned... government is bad in and of itself. but to do away with government would do so much detriment, in the form of the problems I have cited above, that it would be unethical to throw off the system that we have inherited for a purely ethical, and so heavily flawed alternative.  

# December 6, 2007 7:40 PM

Attackdonkey said:

WAIT! what about the objectivist you mentioned? it seems your main issue with government is theft (taxing). but what about that? Look at the huge churches. I know of a church in Plaino, Texas with a yearly budget of 12 million dollars. and it isn't the only one. these churches have magnificent buildings, with detailed craftsmanship, amazing sound systems, they send missionaries all over the world, etc. etc. the point is that all of this is on voluntary donations. could our government run on donations? if it were the proper size. if it only established Justice, ensured domestic tranquility, and provided for the... common defense? (I have a few thoughts on the army.. but we can get to that latter)

# December 6, 2007 7:49 PM

Brainpolice said:

"oh well. I think its pretty much true. I think as far as pure ethics, and only ethics are concerned... government is bad in and of itself. but to do away with government would do so much detriment, in the form of the problems I have cited above, that it would be unethical to throw off the system that we have inherited for a purely ethical, and so heavily flawed alternative."

Well, if you concede that the state is inherently unethical, you could very well be called a "philosophical anarchist". Philosophical anarchists tend to view the state is inherently unjust, but think that it is either a necessary evil or inevitable. I think people like Thomas Jefferson would qualify. Also, to clarify, I do not advocate any kind of violent revolution. My own strategies for ending the state are a matter of market competition and mass civil disobedience. So I do not support unethical means in opposition to the state. We would not want to become just like our own enemies.

"WAIT! what about the objectivist you mentioned? it seems your main issue with government is theft (taxing). but what about that? Look at the huge churches. I know of a church in Plaino, Texas with a yearly budget of 12 million dollars. and it isn't the only one. these churches have magnificent buildings, with detailed craftsmanship, amazing sound systems, they send missionaries all over the world, etc. etc. the point is that all of this is on voluntary donations. could our government run on donations? if it were the proper size. if it only established Justice, ensured domestic tranquility, and provided for the... common defense? (I have a few thoughts on the army.. but we can get to that latter)"

Taxation is not the only problem I have with the state. I have a problem with it because there is no genuine option to opt out, I.E. it violates freedom of association. The objectivists get around the problem of taxation but they still advocate coercive monopoly, since they do not allow competition in the field of law, security and arbitration. I've chatted with a few advocates of "subscribed government" or "donations to government", but the conversations usually devolve into semantics. You are welcome to call such an institution a "government" if you like, but if you actually allow free competition between these institutions you are in fact advocating market anarchism.

# December 7, 2007 10:01 PM

Anonymous said:

The Moncler Chinese Mainland's first flagship store in Shanghai Plaza, the 130-square-meter store people feel the Moncler brand of modern luxury the the Shanghai boutique design represents a milestone in the development of the brand in China, Moncler continued global expansion, followingshop in Paris, Milan, London and Hong Kong, the recent succession.

www.monclerjackets2012outlet.com    Moncler Outlet

www.monclerjackets2012outlet.com    Moncler Jackets

www.monclerjackets2012outlet.com    Moncler

www.monclerjackets2012outlet.com

# October 19, 2012 10:54 PM