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: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.
How is that any different than life now? How has the government stopped 9/11 or 77 terrorists? How has the government of Afghanistan or Iraq prevented those countries from being invaded by foreigners? How did the Nazi government protect Jews, or the 19th century American government protect blacks?
Again, you're speaking in broad generalizations and vagaries. A question I like to ask is,
"What can the state do, that cooperative individuals cannot?"
z1235: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.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
z1235:Btw, how is minarchy any less sustainable than anarchy?
Because the incentives for government are to grow. Governments profit [sic] when they expand, not when they contract. In anarchism (the market), the incentive is based around lowering costs, not increasing them.
Also, government is the sole arbiter of whether it should or can grow. Who interprets the Constitution? The government. If the incentive of the government is to grow, how will they interpret it?
Likewise in anarchy, there is no sole arbiter to determine conflict or law because there is no monopoly. And so, you don't sign up with a PDA who can raise your rates, provide bad service, and lock you and your children into a lifetime of service, regardless of your free will and right to self-ownership.
At this point, I will simply remind you that you have not yet made the case for why minarchy (monopoly) is necessary or even superior to anarchy.
Sorry. I meant it in accessory to your point rather than a convolution. I'm saying that we can expect a free society to organize itself in a way that makes violence and stealing very costly.
Snowflake:Well this would be the utilitarian approach.
No, it isn't. It's just an assumption we have to make when we do economics. Like I said to Physiocrat, we could assume that men are good and that they value justice, fairness etc. when they're in the market setting and that those in politics are not just opportunists but sadists. Now, I don't think that approach is particularly helpful because by simply assuming that people are inherently selfish but responsive to incentives we can still show that governments, by and large, fail and that markets are likely to yield positive outcomes.
I also think it's false, I don't think people in politics are inherently evil, I just think that they're likely to share the misconceptions of the voters (and if you want to understand politics, I think Caplan's work is a must) and self interested.
Now, I think your intepretation of Laughing Man is essentially the same as mine. I also think your analysis is true as far as it goes. The possibility of migration can impose some discipline on the government. It's not just brain drain either, I know from personal experience that the very wealthy from certain African countries are buying up properties in my area to get their money out of the country.
But it just isn't true that this sort of thing is the only check on government. Throughout history we see the scale and scope of government growing at different rates and in different ways, so outside of "competition" there must be some other factors (unless you want to pin it on the people involved) limiting or allowing the growth of government. I also reject the idea that under anarchism there will be some sort of radical decentralization, I think Robert Nozick made an excellent argument for the idea that government can arise out of anarchy.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: I don't think people in politics are inherently evil
If you become a net tax producer, you will feel differently.
GilesStratton:I think Robert Nozick made an excellent argument for the idea that government can arise out of anarchy.
No one denies that.
GilesStratton:No, it isn't. It's just an assumption we have to make when we do economics.
GilesStratton: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".
Talking about institutions generically without referencing liberty + common good = big red flag saying "utilitarian"I do agree that we should assume the worst about our economic agents. I was simply pointing out that your take on where we go from there is utilitarian.
GilesStratton:But it just isn't true that this sort of thing is the only check on government. Throughout history we see the scale and scope of government growing at different rates and in different ways, so outside of "competition" there must be some other factors (unless you want to pin it on the people involved) limiting or allowing the growth of government.
GilesStratton:I also reject the idea that under anarchism there will be some sort of radical decentralization, I think Robert Nozick made an excellent argument for the idea that government can arise out of anarchy.
Snowflake, as far as I can tell your opening line doesn't make any sense. I didn't make any value judgements, I mean, I agree that my use of the term "common good" is a somewhat ambiguous value judgement, but it's certainly not utilitarian and I did put it in square quotes for a reason.
I agree, that competition is usually necessary, I'm just not sure matters are so simple when it comes to the state. Ultimately, I don't think a priori armchair declarations on what is "efficient" are very helpful. Previously I would say that I wasn't convinced that anarchy would work, and until then I would refrain from labeling myself as such. Now, I don't even think that way of thinking about society is particularly helpful, I think a more careful analysis of the institutions in a given society is necessary, and that whilst theoretical definitions of anarchism might be possible, applying them in practise gets very messy (just look at the debates in the "anarchist community" when it comes to Somalia).
This final paragraph is directed at both LS and Snowflake, I'm not sure what "NAP/ self ownership" has anything to do with it. But I also think my original exposition was unclear. My point wasn't so much that government can arise out of anarchism, rather, I think that there would be a tendency for centralization with regards to the production of defense.
GilesStratton:, I mean, I agree that my use of the term "common good" is a somewhat ambiguous value judgement, but it's certainly not utilitarian
certainly not! lol. what then? Rousseauian?
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
GilesStratton:I think a more careful analysis of the institutions in a given society is necessary, and that whilst theoretical definitions of anarchism might be possible, applying them in practise gets very messy (just look at the debates in the "anarchist community" when it comes to Somalia).
No one denies that government can emerge out of anarchy. The point of Nozick's story was that a government could arise spontaneously, i.e. without violating rights. And on this he was soundly refuted (see JLS 1.1).
GilesStratton:(just look at the debates in the "anarchist community" when it comes to Somalia).
Link? All I've seen are non-anarchists who misunderstand institutional bestness trying to use Somalia in an abortive attempt at a reductio.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
I think he means that he's still off about "natural rights" and how he thinks proponents of it believe that rights are some magical protection.
GilesStratton:I think that there would be a tendency for centralization with regards to the production of defense.
Explain the incentives.
GilesStratton:I think a more careful analysis of the institutions in a given society is necessary
Some people are oblivious to the incentives and false claims about of the state. They support the state out of ignorance. Others, support the state because they benefit from it.
You are well aware of the arguments and understanding about the state.
If you stop being a tax consumer and you start to suffer for these institutions, then you will change your mind. That is assuming you are a rational actor.
Once a Minarchy is established, what will prevent the government from growing beyond the size its founders intended it to be? The empirical evidence is overwhelmingly against those who think they can establish some kind of government which will not expand.
liberty student: "What can the state do, that cooperative individuals cannot?"
The state (with its uniform legal system and enforcement) can protect my freedom and property from attacks launched by any other agent from within and from outside the country. In anarchy, anyone with more power than myself can come and take everything I own, including my freedom (slavery) and I would have no recourse whatsoever. You claim that the latter is unlikely. Even if that was true (which I think is not), the utter intensity of that potential loss would make it preferable to trade a little bit of freedom for better visibility (transparent laws) and predictability (limits to government intrusion via constitution and the court system). Additionally, this visibility and predictability allows for much more efficient allocation of productive resources. If I can't know when and what group can decide to just take everything I own, it is much harder to optimally distribute my capital between productive and defensive means.
liberty student: z1235: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. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Your model of human behavior assumes that an individual's self-interest is inherently non-violent and cooperative. My model assumes that self-interest by no means excludes violence, in fact, history has proven that it is its major component. It is the amount of violence inherent in this self-interest model that -- on a sliding scale -- ultimately decides which system is optimal toward maximizing individual freedom. If your model is correct, anarchy maximizes individual freedom. If my model is correct, minarchy maximizes individual freedom.
liberty student: Because the incentives for government are to grow. Governments profit [sic] when they expand, not when they contract. In anarchism (the market), the incentive is based around lowering costs, not increasing them. Also, government is the sole arbiter of whether it should or can grow. Who interprets the Constitution? The government. If the incentive of the government is to grow, how will they interpret it? Likewise in anarchy, there is no sole arbiter to determine conflict or law because there is no monopoly. And so, you don't sign up with a PDA who can raise your rates, provide bad service, and lock you and your children into a lifetime of service, regardless of your free will and right to self-ownership. At this point, I will simply remind you that you have not yet made the case for why minarchy (monopoly) is necessary or even superior to anarchy.
Why is there a government's incentive to grow? How do "they" profit by expanding and not by contracting? If so, how is this different from any other entity? Wouldn't it also be in the interest of any cooperating group of individuals to grow by gaining ever more power and weapons and by merely taking away property from agents that refuse to voluntarily join their agenda? Take the mafia or any "protection" racket as an example. What good is your freedom and what would your recourse be in this scenario?
Z.
z1235: liberty student: "What can the state do, that cooperative individuals cannot?" The state (with its uniform legal system and enforcement) can protect my freedom and property from attacks launched by any other agent from within and from outside the country. In anarchy, anyone with more power than myself can come and take everything I own, including my freedom (slavery) and I would have no recourse whatsoever. You claim that the latter is unlikely. Even if that was true (which I think is not), the utter intensity of that potential loss would make it preferable to trade a little bit of freedom for better visibility (transparent laws) and predictability (limits to government intrusion via constitution and the court system). Additionally, this visibility and predictability allows for much more efficient allocation of productive resources. If I can't know when and what group can decide to just take everything I own, it is much harder to optimally distribute my capital between productive and defensive means.
So why does crime exists inside the United States? Why have states had a history of being invaded by other states? Do you have any proof of the assertions you make about anarchy? Btw, efficiency is subjective. So, we know why you like the state, but should I be coerced into accepting its services?
z1235: liberty student: z1235: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. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Your model of human behavior assumes that an individual's self-interest is inherently non-violent and cooperative. My model assumes that self-interest by no means excludes violence, in fact, history has proven that it is its major component. It is the amount of violence inherent in this self-interest model that -- on a sliding scale -- ultimately decides which system is optimal toward maximizing individual freedom. If your model is correct, anarchy maximizes individual freedom. If my model is correct, minarchy maximizes individual freedom.
Your assumption about the state is that it will not go beyond its given powers. Show me state that has not gone beyond its powers. Optimality is subjective.
z1235: liberty student: Because the incentives for government are to grow. Governments profit [sic] when they expand, not when they contract. In anarchism (the market), the incentive is based around lowering costs, not increasing them. Also, government is the sole arbiter of whether it should or can grow. Who interprets the Constitution? The government. If the incentive of the government is to grow, how will they interpret it? Likewise in anarchy, there is no sole arbiter to determine conflict or law because there is no monopoly. And so, you don't sign up with a PDA who can raise your rates, provide bad service, and lock you and your children into a lifetime of service, regardless of your free will and right to self-ownership. At this point, I will simply remind you that you have not yet made the case for why minarchy (monopoly) is necessary or even superior to anarchy. Why is there a government's incentive to grow? How do "they" profit by expanding and not by contracting? If so, how is this different from any other entity? Wouldn't it also be in the interest of any cooperating group of individuals to grow by gaining ever more power and weapons and by merely taking away property from agents that refuse to voluntarily join their agenda? Take the mafia or any "protection" racket as an example. What good is your freedom and what would your recourse be in this scenario?
They "profit" by gaining more power and enriching their friends, or in the case of Senator Dianne Feinstein, enriching her husband's company. The mafia acts like a state, which is what you favor and wish upon all of us. Btw, at least the mafia don't pretend to be good guys.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Knight_of_BAAWA: I think he means that he's still off about "natural rights" and how he thinks proponents of it believe that rights are some magical protection.
I thought scineram was engaging in bad theatre. Like "TAKE ME TO YOUR SOMALI WARLORD!"