There are a few things about AnCap which have been bothering me recently, and as I sometimes suspend the NAP in my analysis of ideas, these are thoughts which arise in protest of Anarcho-Capitalistic Libertopia. I'm playing around and thought you might like to read it and share with the confidence you won't have a cow reading it.
I. Time Preference and Related Issues
In the days before deposit banking and stock markets became available to everyone in the fashion that they are today, savings was not equal to investment. To a Russian peasant in 1729, whatever wheat he saved from the harvest did not equal some amount going towards the purchase of capital goods. No, indeed, it may very well have simply gone towards an increased consumption. It would have been the exceptional and sober peasant who allocated his savings towards a good further removed from consumption. The State, then, was the method of elongating the structure of production. Tax funds taking from peasantry was often the only way to get funds moving towards capital goods, and those periods with the highest taxation were those that saw the largest expansions to structures of production in Imperial Russia; during the reigns of the 18th century of Peter and Catherine, industrial production expanded as it had never before, as well as the employment of foreign specialists.
That curse of monarchism and royal-only-property is off of us now, and savings are clearly directed towards investment through banking and stock market channels as they are easily accessible and commonly profitable (or rather, the only way to not lose money constantly). But we should not that there is no guarantee that a freed people's time preferences will be lower than that of a centralized state's system. A freed people may very well consume 8/10 and save 2/10, but a people under taxation may consume 7/10, save 2/10 and be taxed 1/10. If we assume that the proceeds from the taxation are going towards channels other than subsidizing other people's consumption then we see a possible elongation of the structure of production. Furthermore, investment goes towards those ventures which the enterpreneur sees as profitable in the foreseeable future, but the funding of government science goes towards the research in ventures which may not be profitable in the foreseeable future. With government funding of scientific research, one may well be lucky and discoveries can be closer than had been assumed. Additionally, research going towards distant goals often yields peripheral benefits. This has often been the case in the American military's funding, yielding such things as jet engines, satelites, computers, and atomic energy. Lastly, funding research which is not profitable in the foreseeable future is simply the virtue of low-time preference taken to the extreme, opening up greater possibilities for discovery.
An Anarchistic society, composed of wanton spendthrifts would not be a miracle society after a certain period of time. The wealth of society requires a certain standard of providing for the future. I am ignorant on this, but I would assume this has a significant component in Germany's prosperity: they are a hard-working and thrifty people. That kind of culture, even under the anvil of statism will still yield a wealthy society.
This isn't to say that I could ever conscionably propose a state that fills the role for investment. But it is to say that a society with a state has the ability to guarantee a certain higher level of societal savings, that is funds allocated towards investment, than a society without one. It is true that there are certain qualities of bureaucracy which pose problems to that statement, but if we just consider an ideal version where that rampant parasitism isn't present, the statement is true.
Wealth is not the sole virtue of life, nor should society be necessarily modeled around its optimization, but it's something to consider.
II. The Arts
(All of this assumes the integrity of IP is held. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be need to comment as art-as-profession would be diminished severely and consequently the stock of artists.)
The market is very much a democratic process. People vote with their dollars and the winners of those elections are the entrepeneurs made rich. The state is very much an elitist institution. People are led by those who control it and are made to accept its proposals, nearly always in body, and often in spirit. Art is elitist in nature putting it at odds with the market process. The artist is absolute over his creation and then shows it to people. Often it is high art which is passed over but cheap art which is devoured. One need only look at the current state of hollywood today: Transformers movies and similar crap make all the big bucks at the box office. It's quite clearly crap, but yet it thrives because a lot of people love crap.
It is for this reason that there is no answer to "A Free Market in News". News agencies are not paid for the quality of content they deliver, or how true it is. They are paid for the satisfaction of their customers, which is why the answer to the question of "Won't news companies in the free market manipulate people?" is "probably, so we must remove state functions instead of limit market ones" (in my opinion).
It's my opinion that most people are not very smart. It is for this reason that the state works, and that the people will continue to vote for politicians that will actively screw them for their own ends. If they could figure it out, then in a few years it would all be over. What about culture under this assumption?
Do you want the democratization of culture? I know it's a silly question without a correct answer, but look at the classical architecture of Austria and Germany, or the sculpture of the wealthy Athenian patrons. These were the products of an elite class and elite tastes. Probably it was money extracted for commoners laboring in agony so that the rich could devote it towards wholly unproductive uses. But do we remember the agony? Or the beautiful sculptures?
I guess I don't have the mental clarity to wrap this up, but I've feel I've riled up the hornet's nest enough for now.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I don't see why a state necessarily lengthens the structure of production. How a state affects the structure of production depends entirely on the nature of its interventions. And in any case, the structure of production isn't everything. It matters what specifically is being produced. For example, I imagine the building of the pyramids substantially lengthened the structure of production in ancient Egypt, but did that increase the long-run productivity of the Egyptian economy? I think not. Since the State invariably allocates resources less productively than the unfettered market, it's far from clear to me that the State would improve the productivity of the economy even if it happened to lengthen the structure of production.
Since increasing societal wealth enables more people to participate in culture, it is bound to cause a vulgarization of culture. It wasn't the political parasitism of the aristoi per se that allowed for the dominance of an aristocratic culture, it was the impoverishment of the masses. Hence statism is no cure for vulgar culture, unless the intention is to use the State to return the masses to their historical impoverishment. In any case, I don't think the real threat to culture comes from the masses. The masses' appetites are responsible for the production of a vast quantity of trash, this is true, but this in itself should not preclude the possibility of another, separate, high culture running alongside. If there has been a decline in high culture (as I want to say there has been), explanations need to be sought elsewhere.
On the issue of the state lengthening the structure of production:
Why did the state have to decide to build the factories. It seems that if a bureaucrat is so convinced that making capital is such a good idea, why not voluntarily solicit the contributions in the first place? If it was so obvious that we needed factories, an entrepreneur would have pooled capital to make some. If it was not so obvious, I do not see why a government would get it right.
It's my opinion that most people are not very smart
Most people under state controlled and compulsed education, you mean. People who are also hurt by government economic and social policies.
Jargon:In the days before deposit banking and stock markets became available to everyone in the fashion that they are today, savings was not equal to investment.
I consider savings to be equal to investment by definition - it's just a question of whether you're investing in yourself or investing in someone else. Either way, you're deferring consumption.
Jargon:To a Russian peasant in 1729, whatever wheat he saved from the harvest did not equal some amount going towards the purchase of capital goods.
If a peasant consumed his entire harvest, he'd have no means of planting more crops. Harvested wheat is a capital good until it's used up.
Jargon:No, indeed, it may very well have simply gone towards an increased consumption. It would have been the exceptional and sober peasant who allocated his savings towards a good further removed from consumption.
Either way, it would be up to the peasant - assuming that he owns his produce.
Jargon:The State, then, was the method of elongating the structure of production. Tax funds taking from peasantry was often the only way to get funds moving towards capital goods, and those periods with the highest taxation were those that saw the largest expansions to structures of production in Imperial Russia; during the reigns of the 18th century of Peter and Catherine, industrial production expanded as it had never before, as well as the employment of foreign specialists.
Sure, there may have been more resources allocated to industrial capital than would've been allocated in the absence of the state. But that means fewer preferences of fewer people were being satisfied.
Jargon:That curse of monarchism and royal-only-property is off of us now, and savings are clearly directed towards investment through banking and stock market channels as they are easily accessible and commonly profitable (or rather, the only way to not lose money constantly). But we should not that there is no guarantee that a freed people's time preferences will be lower than that of a centralized state's system.
If people want to have higher time preferences, I think that's up to them. Who am I to force them to effectively have the time preferences that I want them to have?
Jargon:Do you want the democratization of culture? I know it's a silly question without a correct answer, but look at the classical architecture of Austria and Germany, or the sculpture of the wealthy Athenian patrons. These were the products of an elite class and elite tastes. Probably it was money extracted for commoners laboring in agony so that the rich could devote it towards wholly unproductive uses. But do we remember the agony? Or the beautiful sculptures?
Again, what people value is up to them. Just because some (or many!) people like something doesn't mean I have to like it too. This argument, and the one before it, seem to be arguments against free enterprise. Certain things are assumed to be objectively good, and since there's no guarantee that free enterprise will produce (let alone maximize the production of) these things, while the state presumably will, the state is therefore objectively better than free enterprise. This ignores the point that, just as resources can be forcibly allocated to things that one likes, they can just as easily be forcibly allocated to things that one dislikes.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Tax funds taking from peasantry was often the only way to get funds moving towards capital goods, and those periods with the highest taxation were those that saw the largest expansions to structures of production in Imperial Russia; during the reigns of the 18th century of Peter and Catherine, industrial production expanded as it had never before, as well as the employment of foreign specialists.
Causation or correlation?
This isn't to say that I could ever conscionably propose a state that fills the role for investment. But it is to say that a society with a state has the ability to guarantee a certain higher level of societal savings, that is funds allocated towards investment, than a society without one.
The exact opposite has been argued elsewhere.
It is true that there are certain qualities of bureaucracy which pose problems to that statement, but if we just consider an ideal version where that rampant parasitism isn't present, the statement is true.
Considering that this is one of the inherent features of a state, I think that this ideal is unclear.
People vote with their dollars and the winners of those elections are the entrepeneurs made rich.
Who then become "the rich," "the one percent," "the capitalists," et cetera. There are elitist elements in the market as well- one theory (de Jouvenel) has it that this is how the state came about in the first place; a naturally recognized elite are approached for arbitration and advice. Also, not all "voters" in the market "democracy" have an equal "vote." Capitalism has very limited democratic elements.
Often it is high art which is passed over but cheap art which is devoured.
Thank the state we have such works as Piss Christ.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH