So how exactly would you ensure that these private military corporations and volunteer groups wouldn't wage warfare over more territory? or become states themselves? What is preventing people from Civil War without a State such as ours?
In the Anarchic society of Tribal England, civil conflict was the norm among the Celts, Jutes, and other tribes. In a world of Private Property rights, why wouldn't land owners engage in conflict to obtain more land?
z1235:What do you mean? Do you want me to list all possible and/or likely manifestations of human action/behavior?
I mean, if you are going to refer to human behaviour, then you should be able to define what constitutes human behaviour. If that means listing all possible or likely manifestations, then absolutely. Just refering to human behaviour as some sort of singular idea that goes undefined does nothing to help us in this discussion.
z1235:Are you claiming that violence and stealing do not exist
You already have an answer to this. I will repeat myself, why would violence and stealing be optimal?
GilesStratton:Like I said, quibbles regarding the moral strength of the average man are worthless. I think it's far easier (and more accurate) to assume that most people are inherently selfish, at which point the question becomes which set of institutions will allow this selfishness to do the most harm and which will cause otherwise selfish actors to work towards "the common good".
GilesStratton: Laughing Man:Isn't the ability to leave perhaps the greatest incentive in an organization? If we are compelled to remain in the group either in concordance with our will or against our will, does it really matter what incentives we try to instill? Your wording is a bit confusion, I think I know what you mean but I'm hesitant to attribute a position to you that I'm not sure you hold. First, I read a relevant anecdote a while ago (it was on a blog, I forget which but I have a strong suspicion it was O&M).
Laughing Man:Isn't the ability to leave perhaps the greatest incentive in an organization? If we are compelled to remain in the group either in concordance with our will or against our will, does it really matter what incentives we try to instill?
Your wording is a bit confusion, I think I know what you mean but I'm hesitant to attribute a position to you that I'm not sure you hold. First, I read a relevant anecdote a while ago (it was on a blog, I forget which but I have a strong suspicion it was O&M).
What's wrong with the state is that it has a monopoly on whatever territory. Most states do not stop you from emigrating, which is good, and serves as a check on their abuse of power. This is most notably observed through a phenomenon called "brain drain", where the educated members of your society leave to a better one. Obviously this has not stopped the world from becoming more tyrannical over time, probably because there are only so many governments in the world (oligopoly). The obvious solution is to break the link between institutions and geography to support free entry into the marketplace.
Your spiel about this alternative probabilistic punishment method is kind of non-topical... It could easily be used by states or by private courts. In all probability folks would have a lot of social justice problems with it, since it allows for some bad people to go free and some not-so-bad people to be executed. Such is the way of utilitarianism...
liberty student:You already have an answer to this. I will repeat myself, why would violence and stealing be optimal?
z1235:I proposed minarchy + sound money as a more viable alternative to anarchy, to which you replied that sound money is somehow conflicting with government and taxation. Apparently it's not.
No, it is. All government debts are settled with legal tender. Even payment in kind, is a form of legal tender.
Sound money (in the Austrian - Ron Paul sense) is market money, the absence of legal tender (Paul has called for an end to legal tender).
If Nir or yourself want to argue over what constitutes sound money, so be it. But I am using a Misesian understanding of sound money as market money.
This was why I felt Nir was derailing. Because he introduced trivia that ended up confusing the conversation further.
Snowflake:In anticipation of the statist's response: Why would a free society organize itself in a way that makes violence and stealing optimal?
You're not helping.
liberty student: z1235:Are you claiming that violence and stealing do not exist You already have an answer to this. I will repeat myself, why would violence and stealing be optimal?
It's not a straw-man. It's the real deal.
A. Violence and stealing is (and has been) done by a lot of people.
B. People's motive for doing something is maximizing their self-interest.
C. Violence and stealing must be perceived to be optimal behavior by the ones doing it.
If A and B then C. You would need to ask THEM why. I'm only observing reality and using my brain. I don't need to know their reasons or optimality functions to make my own conclusions.
Z.
liberty student: No, it is. All government debts are settled with legal tender. Even payment in kind, is a form of legal tender. Sound money (in the Austrian - Ron Paul sense) is market money, the absence of legal tender (Paul has called for an end to legal tender). If Nir or yourself want to argue over what constitutes sound money, so be it. But I am using a Misesian understanding of sound money as market money. This was why I felt Nir was derailing. Because he introduced trivia that ended up confusing the conversation further.
Whatever. Let's simplify: Minarchy + gold standard is better (more sustainable, more viable, and maximizes individual freedoms) than anarchy.
z1235:Whatever. Let's simplify: Minarchy + gold standard is better (more sustainable, more viable, and maximizes individual freedoms) than anarchy.
z1235:It's not a straw-man. It's the real deal.
No, it is. I've already answered about violence, for you to repeat a question you already acknowledged the answer for is not very sincere.
z1235:A. Violence and stealing is (and has been) done by a lot of people.
What is "a lot"?
z1235:B. People's motive for doing something is maximizing their self-interest.
Yes.
z1235: C. Violence and stealing must be perceived to be optimal behavior by the ones doing it. If A and B then C.
If A and B then C.
Right. And violence and stealing must be perceived to be less than optimal behaviour by the ones not doing it. What are the difference in incentives between these two groups?
You can't simply claim human nature, because many people do not engage in violence and stealing. We need to understand why billions of people live (relatively) peacefully, and millions do not.
z1235:You would need to ask THEM why. I'm only observing reality and using my brain. I don't need to know their reasons or optimality functions to make my own conclusions.
You might not need to know their reasons to make your own decision, but I expect you know understand their incentives if you want to discuss them with me. If it is you and I, we can agree to non-violence (I think). The issue here, is you introduce the boogeymen of other people. And I want to understand, before we commit to the incentives of a minarchist state and the externalities (more incentives!) it creates, what incentives you suggest we are addressing.
Going back to my earlier point, I don't think most people avoid theft and violence because they fear institutional reprisal. So the notion of laws or state violence keeping us safe, doesn't seem sensical to me at all.
z1235:Let's simplify: Minarchy + gold standard is better (more sustainable, more viable, and maximizes individual freedoms) than anarchy.
That's incorrect.
Minarchy is not sustainable.
Viable is arbitrary.
Anarchism maximizes individual freedom, not minarchy. Anarchism has no institutional impediment to individual freedom. Minarchism does.
liberty student: z1235:Let's simplify: Minarchy + gold standard is better (more sustainable, more viable, and maximizes individual freedoms) than anarchy. That's incorrect. Minarchy is not sustainable. Viable is arbitrary. Anarchism maximizes individual freedom, not minarchy. Anarchism has no institutional impediment to individual freedom. Minarchism does.
Tell that to your somali warlord.
z1235:minarchy + sound money
does not compute
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
liberty student: Anarchism maximizes individual freedom, not minarchy. Anarchism has no institutional impediment to individual freedom. Minarchism does.
Yes, but anarchy has plenty of other potential and highly unpredictable detriments to individual freedom: other people, each with their own claims to your freedom and their own powers to enforce them. The difference between you and I boils down to our models of human behavior. It's a sliding scale, really. If your more idealistic model is closer to reality then maximization of individual freedoms leans toward anarchism. If however, my less idealistic model is closer to reality then minarchy + sound money does indeed end up maximizing individual freedom better than anarchy. Btw, how is minarchy any less sustainable than anarchy?
scineram:Tell that to your somali warlord.
Explain.