Every person has thoughts of a world of perfection; the variations are more numerous than the stars, possibly more numerous than the light waves emitted from the beginnings of time. In order to ascertain the number of corrections that would ail all of society’s ills would take quantum physics equations in astronomical proportions. Yet, even then we may never find a world that in all respects is perfect enough to eliminate all violence, inequality, and or so called fairness.
A great variety of society upon hearing the word Utopianism immediately rationalizes the existence of a large State. The type of State espoused by Mao, Stalin, and Hitler and while these are the extreme of the example, there is another extreme of the word; it relates itself to those who pontificate anarcho-capitalism, as the sophisticated model for society. The idea if only the State would go away private enterprise could solve all problems that arise within a society through the choice of the Free-Market. According to Murray Rothbard this includes the objective use of force.
The Free-Market is an economic model by which no interventions are to be made by third parties not involved in a trade transaction, or exchange. In other words if I as a seller am not selling to you, you don’t get to tax, enforce or otherwise deviate my plans to sell to a consumer by the use of force, and vise-a-versa. Of course a pure free market is only philosophical in nature and never achieved, for as James Madison famously said “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
Madison understood something about the nature of man, and not that man is inheritably evil but first that the free choice to perform malice on others and the market place by force existents. Thus a mode of operandi must exist to dissuade those who would attack property rights and violate the sanctity of the market. Second when you pay someone to use force, that force is corruptible. Lord Acton made the point that “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The part often overlooked is even minimal power is corruptible.
There in lays the declining piece of the puzzle when allowing the market to effectuate force. Just as with governments there is no guarantee that those with the means to use or purchase force will always be of moral standing. One is looking at the equivalent to merger of corporate and state, except it would be the merger of corporate and mercenaries. If not corporate, special interests raising money to hire persons to stop what to them is immoral. The question would be how to regulate the purposes for which force can be used.
Under the Free Market approach anyone owning weaponry can be hired to target any person for any purpose. Again by the Free Market no interventions are to be made by third parties not involved in a trade transaction, or exchange. The hope is one would not be fruitful in such an adventure towards power, though if as anarcho-capitalists picture crime rates would fall and those who wish to continue the business of protection or force, will take any business to keep a profitable balance sheet.
By market operations if crime drops so does the number of protection agencies or agencies of force, making competition scarce as Ludwig Von Mises would concede a monopoly can be born out of the market. Now a market monopoly is always better than a monopoly imposed by force, but what about a monopoly of force created by the market, which then becomes corrupt. The operators already practice efficiency and skill. First the safety of all others would become compromised but so would the ability to vocalize ones displeasure with such a company. Next would be property rights and then the market.
Of course many other processes of the market can create this entanglement or such that are similar in nature. This is because we can apply quantum physics theories to economics. There really is an infinite amount of possibilities for our futures. What needs to be researched further in my humble opinion is how an anarcho human state of being turning itself into one of force and control. What must be remembered is the State existed after man, further more after the thinking man. While there may never be a perfect answer it may help us understand how we can reach further towards the ideal of a pure market.
Jefferson once stated “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” This is because while an Anarcho-capitalist society has the ability to have its members turn deviant on itself; this is not the only possibility. In a true market society it is possible that generations of prosperity pass before such actions are encountered. It may also be that such possibilities are short lived as obverse to the years of tyranny inhibited by nation states. While far from the Utopia of defeating violence, inequality, or fairness, the free market, in the times where the market is able to rein freely the advantages of egalitarianism frolic.
As a society becomes more egalitarian the experience of social mobility becomes affluent and respectable. In order to maintain such a status as a people, information must be disseminated. Another of Jefferson’s wise quotes was that “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” Sadly his ideas and the perceptions about the market were held long before the market could create the ability for such information to be dispersed with the rapidity of today. As such it is up to our succeeding generations to formulate the social contracts we wish to create revealing the intuitiveness of the market across the globe.
I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves... on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves... Benjamin Franklin
"Monopoly of force created by the market" is a contradiction in terms. If the market is the free exchange of goods, then a monopoly of force can only exist by violating this. A free market monopoly can only exist if that particular company pleases consumers to such an extent that no competitors can outdo its success, though they are always free to attempt this.
You have stated that as crime drops so do the protection agencies, making competition scarce. Even if we assume this, would not competition rise if one company begins to aggress? You state if crime falls, demand falls. If crime rises, why does demand not rise? There are many threads on PDA's and Warlords, not to mention books and articles in the Mises literature section.
From the Stand Point that this company has supplied the market well to the point they are the only police /protection force. Thus a "Monopoly of Force", If they become the criminals, I agree with you competition would rise, though if the Monopoly company and those who they are working for. I.E. Big Money Giants are able to stamp out competition thereafter; by the newly acclimated use of force they’ve destroyed the civil balance of peaceful markets.
Though I believe it would be short lived if the company is not successfull in disarming the public. Dissarmamnet can also come by persuasion and not just force.
Big Money Giants are able to stamp out competition thereafter
This contention is no more defensible for security firms than it is for car firms. Big business, having huge liabilities, and capital investments, is typically in a far more precarious competitive position that upstarts; and innovators can easily knock a chunk out of its market shares.
While the economics is sound, nothing can account for a citizenry that is comfortable with a specific company who now corrupt may lie and slander other companies to keep its market share. Again, more information traveling at faster speeds, as well as and armed citizenry would make the situation short lived though still possible. In effect we face a similar situation a monopoly on force, that can stamp out competition. As information speeds up in its dissimination we are seeing a change in tide and ability to manipulate through propaganda.
It seems that you are talking about natural elites (in that people accept the legitimacy of the PDA to do certain actions which they would not accept from individuals or other companies). Have you read Hoppe on this topic?
While the economics is sound, nothing can account for a citizenry that is comfortable with a specific company who now corrupt may lie and slander other companies to keep its market share.
Except for, you know, all the normal market forces that work for reputation. At present many State activities crowd out and obstruct such forces, yet it is not seen that people will continue to throw their money into a company that is poisoning them for one which is not.
In effect we face a similar situation a monopoly on force, that can stamp out competition.
Two points:
1) states are not a monopoly on force, they are a monopoly on deciding exceptions. Whatever rules may exist and however they may be enforced the State gets to decide what happens in the marginal cases and distinguishing friend and foe. This feature is what makes it possible to recognize the State in ancient Athens or Republican Rome, even though the actual centralized nation-state is almost entirely a modern-era phenomena. It is obvious that the American Government holds no monopoly of force (the American public are for more heavily armed and wealthier). I recommend reading Carl Schmitt on this;
2) What we face now is not a monopoly of force that can stamp out competition, but a monopoly on exception decision. Barring supermajority power (i.e., France vs. the occupants of Belgium) it is not possible to use force to monopolize control, this requires the consent of the governed. What is the source of the State's strange control over exceptions and friend/foe distinctions? Quite simply this consent, which comes about due to recognize norms of social life. The State, in another word, has legitimacy. A private firm has no such legitimacy except within its own recognized domain, when this domain is of dubious extent it is a 3rd party who would be called upon to decide the exception. In a State system, the State is its own 3rd party. It is a vicious loop, but it works because very few people can understand the underlying structure of social norms, they just follow them.
opsisone:A great variety of society upon hearing the word Utopianism immediately rationalizes the existence of a large State. The type of State espoused by Mao, Stalin, and Hitler and while these are the extreme of the example, there is another extreme of the word; it relates itself to those who pontificate anarcho-capitalism, as the sophisticated model for society. The idea if only the State would go away private enterprise could solve all problems that arise within a society through the choice of the Free-Market. According to Murray Rothbard this includes the objective use of force.
What are the definitions you're using for "government" and "state"?
opsisone:The Free-Market is an economic model by which no interventions are to be made by third parties not involved in a trade transaction, or exchange. [...] Under the Free Market approach anyone owning weaponry can be hired to target any person for any purpose.
[...]
Under the Free Market approach anyone owning weaponry can be hired to target any person for any purpose.
I do believe that this is a straw man. For example, I recently bought a house. The homeowner's insurance policy that I purchased doesn't allow certain breeds of dogs to be kept on the premises. These breeds have been deemed by the homeowner's insurance company as intolerable threats to neighboring residents. An example of such a breed is the Rottweiler.
Under your description of the free market, I could purchase a Rottweiler from an owner anytime I want, homeowner's insurance policy be damned. Realistically, while I probably could do so, and keep the Rottweiler on my property for some time, at some point the insurance company will want to come by and make sure I'm following the terms of the policy. If they find the Rottweiler, they could hold me liable for insurance fraud.
Note that the situation above is entirely "governed", if you will, by contractual agreements. Yet these contractual agreements can allow third parties, such as insurance companies, to effectively intervene in later transactions. In other words, exchanges don't occur in a vacuum even in a free market.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum