Aster_Lacnala:but to simply say they shouldn't bring it up is to say there can be no valid arguments... However, simply telling everyone who disagrees with you not to speak doesn't make you right, nor will they accept you as right until you have addressed their concerns.
No, that's not what I'm saying. My argument is that minarchists cannot use "how would X work" questions as an objection to anarchy; rather, they must give reasons why the argument against monopoly doesn't apply to the legal system. This is because any attempt to answer a "how would X work" question is necessarily going to be speculative, and the argument for the market is that competition is a discovery procedure: it is through the process of market competition that we learn how to best organize the economy. In other words, the market will take care of it.
But this isn't the whole story. The efficiency of markets depends largely on entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurs must be constantly seeking profit opportunities and marketing new business plans. Entrepreneurs coming up with solutions is one part of what it means for the market to take care of something.
So at least some entrepreneurs need to be engaging in creating speculative business plans (see, e.g. the work of Gil Guillory); if absolutely no one had any business plans, that would mean that the market couldn't take care of it. At some point people are going to have to create and run these businesses, and that means having a workable business plan.
But say a minarchist considers a speculative plan like Guillory's, finds it wanting, and concludes that anarchy is undesirable. Is this a legitimate move? That is, can the minarchist justifiably reject anarchy on these grounds? I don't think so. It seems to me the minarchist would be committing the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity: reasoning from "I don't know how the market could provide X" to "the market cannot provide X." But this is fallacious. Just because you as a single entrepreneur don't have a workable business plan does not mean that everyone else on the planet doesn't have one, or couldn't develop one in the future.
Hence the minarchist cannot use "how would X work" questions as an objection to anarchy. Instead they must give reasons to show that anarchy is conceptually impossible, or that the argument against monopoly does not apply to the legal system. For example, Objectivist minarchists are on the right track when they argue that anarchy lacks constitutional restraints on the use of force, or that anarchy lacks a final arbiter, or that a functioning market presupposes a functioning legal system. Now, I don't think these particular arguments are successful, but in principle they could be; on the other hand, the "how would X work" objections are necessarily fallacious, because they commit the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.
Thus, anarchists have no burden to answer "how would X work" questions, although someone needs to answer them eventually if a libertarian society is ever to be achieved. For more on this, see Long's discussion of the light bulb joke here.
One last point: the minarchist position is actually a self-fulfilling prophecy. Minarchists reject anarchism because anarchism doesn't have a workable business plan, but one reason anarchism doesn't have a workable business plan is because minarchists refuse to become anarchists and develop such a plan. So to all minarchists I extend an invitation: why not become anarchists and work toward creating a workable business plan? Instead of criticizing anarchism from the outside, join us and help to improve it.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
It almost seems to me that anarchists are working under a fallacy as well - no government system they can think of will bring about the desired result, therefore no government system ever can. I personally agree that the market is superior to any state... in the question of resource management. That's the position of both anarchists and minarchists.
However, laws are not merely economic; they are an attempt to apply a standard of morality to a society. If you do not believe in applying any morality, there can be no laws. For example, when you see me killing, stealing, or otherwise acting the brigand, you cannot stop me without applying your morality to me. If you think morality is totally subjective, then you have no call to stop me unless I am transgressing against you personally. A situation such as this would be chaos - not just anarchy, but lawlessness.
Now, I'm all for entrepreneurs to find profitable ways of solving the problem of chaos. However, to bring down the State before they do so would set up a lawless society. It would certainly provide motivation to the entrepreneurs! The costs, however, are too high... and if there is some reason we do not yet see that disables entrepreneurs from solving the problem, we are screwed. On the other hand, a Minarchy can bring a minimum level of law to a society, which avoids the chaos. This does not prevent people from thinking of ways to reduce it down, perhaps to nothing, but it provides a buffer in case they can't. We have a government now, but people can still agree to private arbitration and hire security firms.
So perhaps you are right. Minarchists should not think of the situations they create as proof of anarchy's inability to operate. However, they do provide food for thought for potential entrepreneurs to start working on ways to solve the problem before it comes up, rather than after it is needed. In the same way, anarchists should not assume the market can handle every problem, since there is no way to foresee every possible problem.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Aster_Lacnala: It almost seems to me that anarchists are working under a fallacy as well - no government system they can think of will bring about the desired result, therefore no government system ever can.
It almost seems to me that anarchists are working under a fallacy as well - no government system they can think of will bring about the desired result, therefore no government system ever can.
Government, by its very nature, is an infringement upon personal liberty. To what degree government infringes on personal liberty depends entirely on the size of the government, but even a minimal government will make minimal infringements. It follows that a State of any kind (and all States must have a monopoly on force in order to survive) will fail to fulfill the objectives of the libertarian movement towards absolute liberty, simply because as Mises said, "Government is essentially the negation of liberty."
I'm not sure why this would be an issue in an anarchic society. Morality and the laws being enforced may be "subjective" in nature, but they are enforceable only within the limits of ones property, and so it is also the choice of the "criminal" whether or not he will trespass onto that piece of property. One could therefore deduct that anarchy is not synonymous with lawlessness. The law, quite simply, is just localized onto individual parcels of property, where the owner will be able to enforce any laws he or she wishes.
It was not my intention to equate anarchy with lawlessness - rather, my concern is that anarchy will result in a period of lawlessness before the appropriate market systems are set up. Market forces can operate quickly, but they are not instantaneous, and it seems silly to cut out the safety net before the floor is finished. Generally, minarchists don't see the government as good, or desirable. They simply see it as preferable to the problems that may arise in anarchy. So it does little good to tell me that government is an infringement on liberty - I agree. I simply think the infringement is, at least in the short term, needed.
Aster_Lacnala:Market forces can operate quickly, but they are not instantaneous, and it seems silly to cut out the safety net before the floor is finished.
I have much scarier thoughts. The safety net may collapse all on its own before we have a functional marketplace to replace it.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Aster_Lacnala:It almost seems to me that anarchists are working under a fallacy as well - no government system they can think of will bring about the desired result, therefore no government system ever can.
Aster_Lacnala:However, laws are not merely economic; they are an attempt to apply a standard of morality to a society. If you do not believe in applying any morality, there can be no laws. For example, when you see me killing, stealing, or otherwise acting the brigand, you cannot stop me without applying your morality to me. If you think morality is totally subjective, then you have no call to stop me unless I am transgressing against you personally. A situation such as this would be chaos - not just anarchy, but lawlessness. Now, I'm all for entrepreneurs to find profitable ways of solving the problem of chaos. However, to bring down the State before they do so would set up a lawless society.
Now, I'm all for entrepreneurs to find profitable ways of solving the problem of chaos. However, to bring down the State before they do so would set up a lawless society.
How do you purport to set up the "necessary market forces" whilst having a government which is disallowing these markets to develop?
Does a government inherently disallow these forces? As I said, I can right now (assuming affordability) hire a private security firm. I still have to pay my taxes which provide a police force, but if I choose to have security guards deal with situations on my property I may.
Aster_Lacnala: Does a government inherently disallow these forces? As I said, I can right now (assuming affordability) hire a private security firm. I still have to pay my taxes which provide a police force, but if I choose to have security guards deal with situations on my property I may.
You can't ask a private security firm to provide you justice, however.
If the government is providing a security force which exists to enforce a number of laws, even if they are told to enforce only laws developed by property owners on their property, the fact remains that there is no incentive for competitors to enter the market. Why would the majority of people purchase services from another company for the same services they are being coerced into paying for by the government? Even today, private security forces do not fulfill the same rules as public security forces. Private companies serve as complements, not as supplements.
A competitive market can only be established after the State-enforced monopoly is removed.
How am I to answer? I could ask, "How can a free market provide true justice?" and list some of the potential pitfalls. But as the OP made mention, that is the question for the entrepreneur, and there is no buurden of proof. I also cannot describe a way in which a security firm could provide justice while under a state, but this doesn't mean there is no way - it just means it hasn't been thought up. Can I not also simply appeal to the market, saying some entrepreneur will find a way to provide the service, and isn't up to me to answer that?
A government funded security force would enforce a minimum set of laws, but not necessarily the ones that property owners wanted. For example, if I own a road, I can disallow drinking while driving. But not all road owners will, and the government security isn't responsible for enforcing my laws on my property. If I want additional restrictions, I must still hire a private firm to enforce them.
Then you agree that the public security force is superfluous and unnecessary, while the protection for private property rights was immediately provided by the market?
I don't think so. The crucial difference is that government needs to create a blueprint because they are centrally planning a monopoly, whereas for the market, dispersed knowledge is coordinated through the price system, and no monolithic blueprint is necessary.
Aster_Lacnala:However, laws are not merely economic; they are an attempt to apply a standard of morality to a society.
Very true, and I do not deny the legal system has a noneconomic aspect. But the legal system does have an economic aspect, and this aspect can be analyzed by economics: a monopoly legal system is still a monopoly, and monopolies are plagued by informational and incentival problems.
Aster_Lacnala:However, to bring down the State before they do so would set up a lawless society. It would certainly provide motivation to the entrepreneurs! The costs, however, are too high... and if there is some reason we do not yet see that disables entrepreneurs from solving the problem, we are screwed.
I agree, anarchism would be much less desirable if it required first destroying the State and then establishing an anarchist legal system.
However, I see no reason to think that this strategy is necessary. On the contrary, the best strategy is one of “building new institutions within the shell of the old” and education, rather than overnight revolution. Moreover, since the State cannot be destroyed unless there are private protection agencies actively outcompeting it, I see little possibility of a "legal system vacuum."
Aster_Lacnala:Minarchists should not think of the situations they create as proof of anarchy's inability to operate. However, they do provide food for thought for potential entrepreneurs to start working on ways to solve the problem before it comes up, rather than after it is needed.
I agree. I definitely don't think we should discourage entrepreneurial speculation and the creation of business plans (since these are necessary for bringing about an anarchist society). My point was that we need to recognize the limited justificatory status of these speculations; that is, that even if minarchists reject them, they aren't justified in rejecting anarchism.
I honestly don't know how the tooth brush industry works, but I am able to buy a tooth brush all the same. I suppose if the government took over the tooth brush industry, I couldn't tell statists how the tooth brush industry would work if it was demonopolized. I guess I fail as an anarchist.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Then you agree that the public security force is superfluous and unnecessary, while the protection for private property rights was immediately provided by the market?
No, I'm saying it could eventually become superfluous under a minarchy, thus establishing that anarchy isn't needed to develop these systems.
Aster_Lacnala: No, I'm saying it could eventually become superfluous under a minarchy, thus establishing that anarchy isn't needed to develop these systems.
But, you conceded that the public police force did not fulfill the demand that private sector security forces do. It follows that they are superfluous. Either they are superfluous, or they necessarily crowd out the development of private security forces which fulfill their job.
Right now, the private education system in the U.S. cannot provide cheap, quality education. The public school system, though far less effective, is not superfluous. Yet there is nothing stopping some entrepreneur from replacing it if they can find a cheaper way of doing private education. None have, yet. Does it make it more difficult to get customers because of the public option? Sure it does. Does it make it impossible? No.
Actually, that is a very telling example. A similar example would be a universal healthcare system, and how it crowds out private healthcare providers. The fact of the matter is that the costs of public education (or universal healthcare) is not equally distributed. The costs are not even proportionally distributed. A large number of persons are receiving the benefits of public education for a cost lower than getting it through a private education. The costs of public education are consistently driven upwards, but they are still largely paid for by a small group of wealthier taxpayers. It is impossible for private education providers to enter the market because if they were to make their product competitive in price in relation to the costs of public education, it would effectively have to come free of charge. Efficient and cheap private education is driven off the market by the provision of public education.
The result is something similar to the previous example of private security firms. For education, this complemental service is provided through the internet. The internet privately provides a great deal of educational resources. But, it has not and cannot replace schooling. The service of schooling has been crowded out by the State.
There are, of course, exceptions, but these exceptions are reserved for those who can afford the high costs associated with a relatively large supply (there are many unemployed educators looking to provide a private education for a willing customer) and a relatively low demand.
Admittedly, I knew it wasn't the greatest example to make my point, but I'm sleepy and can't think of another one. :D That said, it does seem to introduce this: if private education cannot be made cheap enough to compete with the nearly free public education system, then wouldn't security fall to the same problem?
If we dismantle the public education system, there will be those who cannot afford an education at all. They may not even be able to improve their earning power by learning new skills. Scholarships will probably be offered by wealthy people, based on who the donor feels is deserving, but many will simply miss out. That becomes an even bigger problem, because it is the poor and poorly educated who are most likely to embrace socialist doctrines - too many people buying into some rhetoric, and you have the State all over again.
The same applies if we dismantle the police. There will be those unable to afford security, forced to fight for their rights on their own. These will be the people victimized by groups, and unable to get justice. Again, these people would be likely to embrace anybody who offers them a "better life", all they need to do is obey...
Sage: Hence the minarchist cannot use "how would X work" questions as an objection to anarchy. Instead they must give reasons to show that anarchy is conceptually impossible, or that the argument against monopoly does not apply to the legal system.
Hence the minarchist cannot use "how would X work" questions as an objection to anarchy. Instead they must give reasons to show that anarchy is conceptually impossible, or that the argument against monopoly does not apply to the legal system.
I guess my argument runs, then, that the arguments against monopoly do not apply to the legal system, because there are situations that a monopolistic legal system can handle that a free-market one cannot, such as universal securing of basic rights and justice.
Aster_Lacnala: That said, it does seem to introduce this: if private education cannot be made cheap enough to compete with the nearly free public education system, then wouldn't security fall to the same problem?
That said, it does seem to introduce this: if private education cannot be made cheap enough to compete with the nearly free public education system, then wouldn't security fall to the same problem?
This is the exact problem I am proposing.
If we dismantle the public education system, there will be those who cannot afford an education at all. They may not even be able to improve their earning power by learning new skills.
Well, learning skills should not be conflated with the education received at public schools. It should be considered that the cost of private education would be substantially reduced in a free market, and it should also be considered that demand for an intellectual education would probably be quite limited. The current "intellectual education" system, known as the public school system, overly emphasizes the role of general education. In Spain, for example, a large portion of the population learns a skill and utilizes it to make a living. This type of education has been marginalized by the State, in the United States.
We are risking turning this thread into one of education, so I will stop here and instead pick up with the topic of private security.
The same applies if we dismantle the police.
No, it does not—at least, not with the consequences you suggest would occur. The demand for protection is infinite. One can provide that protection himself, or he could outsource it. There's no reason why an individual could not provide his own security—there would be no laws making certain defensive techniques illegal (such as laws which protect the criminal if they damage themselves during a forced entry, or are shot or even killed). There is no reason why communities could not collude to donate money into a common pool of savings, as to pay for collective protection (such communities exist for other services which are not paid for by the government, already). The possibilities are endless.
Aster_Lacnala:Admittedly, I knew it wasn't the greatest example to make my point, but I'm sleepy and can't think of another one. :D That said, it does seem to introduce this: if private education cannot be made cheap enough to compete with the nearly free public education system, then wouldn't security fall to the same problem?
But the problem is that public education is not free or even "nearly free." The costs are just hidden under layers upon layers of bloated bureaucracy and taxpaying.
Aster_Lacnala:If we dismantle the public education system, there will be those who cannot afford an education at all. They may not even be able to improve their earning power by learning new skills. Scholarships will probably be offered by wealthy people, based on who the donor feels is deserving, but many will simply miss out. That becomes an even bigger problem, because it is the poor and poorly educated who are most likely to embrace socialist doctrines - too many people buying into some rhetoric, and you have the State all over again. The same applies if we dismantle the police. There will be those unable to afford security, forced to fight for their rights on their own. These will be the people victimized by groups, and unable to get justice. Again, these people would be likely to embrace anybody who offers them a "better life", all they need to do is obey...
Does any of this give someone the moral right to extort payments for socialized schooling or defense?
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
Aster_Lacnala:, such as universal securing of basic rights and justice.
like the right to 100% of your property and to not be jailed for victimless crimes?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
One would presume that a Minarchy would not jail you for victimless crimes. As for the other...
More and more as I read people's views on this site, I realize that some consequences of ancap are morally abhorrent to me. So while I view people's right to their property as a high moral principle, I do not view it as the HIGHEST moral principle. I'd love to find a way to support the government without taxation, or for someone to find a way to solve problems entirely without a government. Until such is possible... yes, I'm willing to accept a State which takes a little of everyone's money in order to secure the principles I see as more important. Does that make me an imperfect Libertarian? I'm okay with that.
Aster_Lacnala:More and more as I read people's views on this site, I realize that some consequences of ancap are morally abhorrent to me. So while I view people's right to their property as a high moral principle, I do not view it as the HIGHEST moral principle. I'd love to find a way to support the government without taxation, or for someone to find a way to solve problems entirely without a government. Until such is possible... yes, I'm willing to accept a State which takes a little of everyone's money in order to secure the principles I see as more important. Does that make me an imperfect Libertarian? I'm okay with that.
I too would reject anarchy if it had massively horrendous consequences. But I see no reason to think that it does. Indeed, I think market anarchism is the best possible society for both moral and consequentialist reasons.
Sage: Aster_Lacnala:More and more as I read people's views on this site, I realize that some consequences of ancap are morally abhorrent to me. So while I view people's right to their property as a high moral principle, I do not view it as the HIGHEST moral principle. I'd love to find a way to support the government without taxation, or for someone to find a way to solve problems entirely without a government. Until such is possible... yes, I'm willing to accept a State which takes a little of everyone's money in order to secure the principles I see as more important. Does that make me an imperfect Libertarian? I'm okay with that. I too would reject anarchy if it had massively horrendous consequences. But I see no reason to think that it does. Indeed, I think market anarchism is the best possible society for both moral and consequentialist reasons.
Market anarchism= you get to sell your cake, and eat it too
I would probably say that I am an anarchist more for moral reasons, but it certainly doesn hurt that everything the gov't does makes things worse. Or maybe I should say, it certainly does hurt, and thats why its even more reason to be an anarchist.
Aster_Lacnala: It was not my intention to equate anarchy with lawlessness - rather, my concern is that anarchy will result in a period of lawlessness before the appropriate market systems are set up. Market forces can operate quickly, but they are not instantaneous, and it seems silly to cut out the safety net before the floor is finished.
It was not my intention to equate anarchy with lawlessness - rather, my concern is that anarchy will result in a period of lawlessness before the appropriate market systems are set up. Market forces can operate quickly, but they are not instantaneous, and it seems silly to cut out the safety net before the floor is finished.
This sounds similar to the necessity of a recession after a government induced boom and peoples excuses to not allow the market to correct itself. Look, just because the medicine tastes bad doesn't mean you shouldn't swallow it if it is going to make you feel better in the long run.