Daniel Muffinburg: I'm guessing Lam isn't an an-cap.
I'm guessing Lam isn't an an-cap.
I think Lam indicated before that he likes to receive subsidies and that he is entitled to them by nature of the work he does.
laminustacitus:And yet there is not a single historical case study of such a society lasting.
Historical evidence. More historical evidence. Even more historical evidence.
Your argument is invalid.
laminustacitus:In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand.
Sure, if you want to call it that. But be careful to avoid the nirvana fallacy: the relevant issue is which system can best minimize tyranny and protect liberty. And here the answer is market anarchy: the incentive structure of market competition is superior to the incentive structure of government bureaucracy.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Sage:Sure, if you want to call it that. But be careful to avoid the nirvana fallacy: the relevant issue is which system can best minimize tyranny and protect liberty. And here the answer is market anarchy: the incentive structure of market competition is superior to the incentive structure of government bureaucracy.
The problem with representative government is that the masses rely on politicians to represent their interests. Politicians do not naturally have an incentive to represent your interests or mine; they have every incentive to pursue personal reward. We must constantly force them to behave ethically. Absent the ever-present vigilance of the public eye, the system descends into corruption.
Likewise, invent a hypothetical "anarcho-capitalism" is which legal matters are handled by private firms. These private firms do not naturally have an incentive to be honest unless the outsiders are constantly watching out for every indiscretion. Remove public participation, and the system becomes as corrupt as can be.
Anarcho-capitalism is basically a form of representative government. Both degenerate toward corruption unless firmly controlled by the populace.
Whereas in direct democracy, cutting deals behind closed doors becomes literally impossible. Under direct democracy, no law can ever be written unless everybody first reads it and the majority of them consent.
Taxes would be nonexistent, because they could not pass a majority vote. (And even if it did, no police force would be in place to enforce it. And if a police force was created, public outrage would be so high that it would be abolished.) Taxes are not in the interest of the populace. They are in the interest of politicians. Get rid of politicians, and taxes disappear.
Likewise, virtually every form injustice or corruption could not survive in direct democracy.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi:Likewise, invent a hypothetical "anarcho-capitalism" is which legal matters are handled by private firms. These private firms do not naturally have an incentive to be honest unless the outsiders are constantly watching out for every indiscretion.
Wrong. Apply an economic analysis. They have an incentive. The profit motive. They also have a natural pressure on them to meet consumer demand.
Competition.
ama gi:Anarcho-capitalism is basically a form of representative government. Both degenerate toward corruption unless firmly controlled by the populace.
Even if we believed that, how better to control something, than to force it to be accountable via competition? How can you establish a monopoly government, and then not expect it to behave in a monopolistic fashion? The vigilant public. But if the government is the final arbiter of what the law means, then how can the public ever call it to account? You're right back to where you started.
ama gi:Whereas in direct democracy, cutting deals behind closed doors becomes literally impossible. Under direct democracy, no law can ever be written unless everybody first reads it and the majority of them consent.
But in a direct democracy, individual liberty can be subverted if it is a minority position. And by going to a direct democracy, you institutionalize a system to do specifically this. Any minority decision for negative rights is an act of individualism, and so, every minority possession repressed, ignored or countered, is in fact a subversion of individual liberty.
ama gi:Taxes would be nonexistent, because they could not pass a majority vote. (And even if it did, no police force would be in place to enforce it. And if a police force was created, public outrage would be so high that it would be abolished.) Taxes are not in the interest of the populace. They are in the interest of politicians. Get rid of politicians, and taxes disappear.
There are always special interests who want taxes to be collected for the purpose of subsidizing those industries or providing privilege to some individuals/groups/firms. Look at every time taxes have been instituted. Always with gradualism (only on the rich aka the minority) and then over time, they apply to everyone because bureaucracies are established to implement the strategy of gradualism.
ama gi:Likewise, virtually every form injustice or corruption could not survive in direct democracy.
Sure it could. As soon as the majority voted to impose it. First on the minority, and then later, through gradualism, on themselves.
ama gi: Sage:Sure, if you want to call it that. But be careful to avoid the nirvana fallacy: the relevant issue is which system can best minimize tyranny and protect liberty. And here the answer is market anarchy: the incentive structure of market competition is superior to the incentive structure of government bureaucracy. The problem with representative government is that the masses rely on politicians to represent their interests. Politicians do not naturally have an incentive to represent your interests or mine; they have every incentive to pursue personal reward. We must constantly force them to behave ethically. Absent the ever-present vigilance of the public eye, the system descends into corruption. Likewise, invent a hypothetical "anarcho-capitalism" is which legal matters are handled by private firms. These private firms do not naturally have an incentive to be honest unless the outsiders are constantly watching out for every indiscretion. Remove public participation, and the system becomes as corrupt as can be. Anarcho-capitalism is basically a form of representative government. Both degenerate toward corruption unless firmly controlled by the populace. Whereas in direct democracy, cutting deals behind closed doors becomes literally impossible. Under direct democracy, no law can ever be written unless everybody first reads it and the majority of them consent. Taxes would be nonexistent, because they could not pass a majority vote. (And even if it did, no police force would be in place to enforce it. And if a police force was created, public outrage would be so high that it would be abolished.) Taxes are not in the interest of the populace. They are in the interest of politicians. Get rid of politicians, and taxes disappear. Likewise, virtually every form injustice or corruption could not survive in direct democracy.
How would inter-democracy disputes be settled?
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."
Daniel Muffinburg:How would inter-democracy disputes be settled?
What's an example of an "inter-democracy dispute"?
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:How would inter-democracy disputes be settled? What's an example of an "inter-democracy dispute"?
I belong to one democracy while you belong to another democracy, and there is a dispute between us. How do we go about resolving the dispute?
Depends on which democracy has regional jurisdiction.
If you commit murder in California, you will be arrested and tried in California under California law--even if you live in Nevada or Texas, or if you prefer to be tried in Nevada or Texas.
Direct democracies would operate the same way. You would be dragged to the nearest jury, not whichever jury you prefer (or whichever one your accusers prefer).
Ama Gi can you just admit I am right so I can go to sleep?
ama gi: Depends on which democracy has regional jurisdiction. If you commit murder in California, you will be arrested and tried in California under California law--even if you live in Nevada or Texas, or if you prefer to be tried in Nevada or Texas. Direct democracies would operate the same way. You would be dragged to the nearest jury, not whichever jury you prefer (or whichever one your accusers prefer).
So, if I am the sole member of a democracy, and that democracy has jurisdiction on my property, and I am the jury in that jurisdiction, and I commit a crime on my property, I will be juror to my own prosecution?
Daniel Muffinburg:So, if I am the sole member of a democracy, and that democracy has jurisdiction on my property, and I am the jury in that jurisdiction
You must have a pretty loose definition of the word "jury".
Almost like the Fed's loose definition of the word "dollar".
Bad, bad definitions.
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:So, if I am the sole member of a democracy, and that democracy has jurisdiction on my property, and I am the jury in that jurisdiction You must have a pretty loose definition of the word "jury". Almost like the Fed's loose definition of the word "dollar". Bad, bad definitions.
How are you defining jury?
liberty student:Wrong. Apply an economic analysis. They have an incentive. The profit motive. They also have a natural pressure on them to meet consumer demand.
The profit motive won't do jack diddly unless consumers are capable of making informed choices. People can't make informed choices concerning laws unless they are personally reading and signing proposed legislation and personally sitting on juries.
liberty student:How can you establish a monopoly government, and then not expect it to behave in a monopolistic fashion? The vigilant public. But if the government is the final arbiter of what the law means, then how can the public ever call it to account?
I'm sitting here writing about direct democracy and you are asking me "how can the public ever call it to account?" Isn't that self-explanatory?
liberty student:Look at every time taxes have been instituted. Always with gradualism (only on the rich aka the minority) and then over time
Capitalism increases everybody's standards of living and allows everybody to own property. If everybody owns property, then naturally they are going to write laws that favor private property.
You've never read de Tocqueville, have you?
Daniel Muffinburg: ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:So, if I am the sole member of a democracy, and that democracy has jurisdiction on my property, and I am the jury in that jurisdiction You must have a pretty loose definition of the word "jury". Almost like the Fed's loose definition of the word "dollar". Bad, bad definitions. How are you defining jury?
A random selection of unbiased citizens who have volunteered (for free or for pay) to oversee a trial.
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg: ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:So, if I am the sole member of a democracy, and that democracy has jurisdiction on my property, and I am the jury in that jurisdiction You must have a pretty loose definition of the word "jury". Almost like the Fed's loose definition of the word "dollar". Bad, bad definitions. How are you defining jury?A random selection of unbiased citizens who have volunteered (for free or for pay) to oversee a trial.
Who would choose them?
Daniel Muffinburg:Who would choose them?
Doesn't matter, as long as it's random.
Whats Ironic in Ami G's argument is that he believes a market is in-sufficient. So what he puts in its place is a system thats to function as much like a market as possible but with all the deficiencies that democracy brings with it. In other words he'd like to replace a market with a retarded market.
Perhaps whats most frustrating is Ami G's direct democracy carries with it all of the problems thats developed the system we have today. Complete and utter monopoly over positive law. It is lunacy to replace a failing system with another one that carries the same problems. Nothing gets resolved. He pretends that his courts will some how magically work in harmony, and that somehow a market provided court would be wrought in corruption, despite the need to please the consumer. Where in his system there is no insentive to please anyone but themselves and his judges are just as subject to being bought off as anyone else.
The difference is, in the market bought of judges get fired or clients leave those firms. Scandles get handled on a market level.
ama gi:These private firms do not naturally have an incentive to be honest unless the outsiders are constantly watching out for every indiscretion.
Negative. If the firms want to even exist they must please the consumer. If there is no satisfaction of the consumer they simply do not exist.
ama gi:Remove public participation, and the system becomes as corrupt as can be.
Wrong again. Removing the public would remove the firm. The firm operates on consumer participation. If there is no consumer, there is no firm. In other words, the firm does have all the natural intensive it needs to please it's consumer base.
I hope very much you are not conflating voting and democracy with market activity. In a market even the minority gets what they want. This does not occur in a democracy.
A market is not a democracy in any sense of the word. Big analogous mistakes are made when people believe this.
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:Who would choose them? Doesn't matter, as long as it's random.
"What are the two most historically important people to Western Civilization?...
Arguably, but I think agreeably - Socrates and Jesus Christ...
Who killed Socrates and Jesus Christ?
...
... Democracy did."
So I could randomly choose myself?
ama gi:The profit motive won't do jack diddly unless consumers are capable of making informed choices. People can't make informed choices concerning laws unless they are personally reading and signing proposed legislation and personally sitting on juries.
If you're right about this, then that's exactly how the market will function. If you're wrong, then no worries.
Why anarchy fails
do consumers have to understand injection moulding techniques so that the worlds factories will produce toothbrushes of the right type, construction and with the requisite efficiency?
do consumers have to understand the finer details of aero-dynamics in order to enjoy the convenience of air travel ?
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
1. Not everyone wants to participate in the political process all the time!Direct democracy presupposes that people will be willing and able to vote on minor concerns all the time. This can only be resolved bya) creating a representative class to deal with certain clusters of issues, which would kill the idea of direct democracy orb) limiting the number of issues that can be voted on, which would trash the idea of democracy by elevating certain elements above its political sphere. Basically, it would become a republic with more voting going on.One might argue that a peaceful and prosperous society will only resort to the ballot in the most extreme of occasions. To disprove that, one only needs to look at the myriad of interest groups, from environmentalists to evangelicals, who constantly try to get public momentum for their way of running things.In the end, the incentive structure of lobbyism would apply to the direct ballot as well: those who stand to gain from certain policies, either economically or ideologically, will flock to the voting office while the general public, of which large numbers already refuse to vote in even a 4-year-cycle, will stay at home since a particular policy might only cost them .50$ more per year. No progress made.2. Common sense of the common people is not the be-all and end-all of decision-making!Who elected people like Bush or Obama? The common man, of course. And if the common man is to be put on a jury to exercise his political power that way, he will just as easily be swayed by PR-savvy, good-looking, sweet-talking "experts", especially if these experts understand how to push the common man's buttons.How should these people even figure out which experts to invite for testimony if their very qualification is that they don't have a clue about the topic in the first place? This glorification of non-expertise needs to stop. Intellectuals may sometimes be full of themselves, but "the common people" cling to half-educated fallacies just as much.3. Poly-totalitarianism is not liberty!A black man's car breaks down in Whitelandia. Whitelandia's jury rules that black people are illegal in Whitelandia and thus, the black man is imprisoned. This has nothing to do with liberty, but everything with putting a bunch of local people with self-reinforcing prejudices into power.
It is sad that Democracy's siren song has pulled one back in. This essay by Höppe is excellent and I suggest people read the whole thing.
Strategy: Stopping the Statist Disease How can the State and the statist disease be stopped? Now I will come to my strategic considerations. First off, three fundamental insights or guiding principles must be recognized. First: that the protection of private property and of law, justice, and law enforcement, is essential to any human society. But there is no reason whatsoever why this task must be taken on by one single agency, by a monopolist. As a matter of fact, it is precisely the case that as soon as you have a monopolist taking on this task, he will with necessity destroy justice and render us defenseless against foreign as well as domestic invaders and aggressors. It is then one's ultimate goal which one has to keep in mind is the demonopolization of protection and justice. Protection, security, defense, law, order, and arbitration in conflicts can and must be supplied competitively — that is, entry into the field of being a judge must be free. Second, because a monopoly of protection is the root of all evil, any territorial expansion of such a monopoly is per se evil too. Every political centralization must be on principle grounds rejected. In turn, every attempt at political decentralization — segregation, separation, secession and so forth — must be supported. The third basic insight is that a democratic protection monopoly in particular must be rejected as a moral and economic perversity. Majority rule and private property protection are incompatible. The idea of democracy must be ridiculed: it is nothing else but mob rule parading as justice. To be labeled a democrat must be considered the worst of all possible compliments! This does not mean that one may not participate in democratic policies; I will come to that a little bit later. But one must use democratic means only for defensive purposes; that is, one may use an antidemocratic platform to be elected by an antidemocratic constituency to implement antidemocratic — that is, anti-egalitarian and pro-private property — policies. Or, to put it differently, a person is not honorable because he is democratically elected. If anything, this makes him a suspect. Despite the fact that a person has been elected democratically, he may still be a decent and honorable man; we have heard one before. From these principles we now come to the problem of application. The basic insights — that is: monopolized protection, a State, will inevitably become an aggressor and lead to defenselessness; and political centralization and democracy are means of extensifying and intensifying exploitation and aggression — while these basic insights give us a general direction in the goal, they are obviously not yet sufficient to define our actions and tell us how to get there. How can the goal of demonopolized protection and justice possibly be implemented given the present circumstances of centralized — almost world democracy — as at least temporarily our starting point from which we have to begin. Let me try to develop an answer to this question by elaborating first in what respect the problem, and also the solution to it, has changed in the course of the last 150 years — that is, since around the middle of the 19 th century.
How can the State and the statist disease be stopped? Now I will come to my strategic considerations. First off, three fundamental insights or guiding principles must be recognized. First: that the protection of private property and of law, justice, and law enforcement, is essential to any human society. But there is no reason whatsoever why this task must be taken on by one single agency, by a monopolist. As a matter of fact, it is precisely the case that as soon as you have a monopolist taking on this task, he will with necessity destroy justice and render us defenseless against foreign as well as domestic invaders and aggressors.
It is then one's ultimate goal which one has to keep in mind is the demonopolization of protection and justice. Protection, security, defense, law, order, and arbitration in conflicts can and must be supplied competitively — that is, entry into the field of being a judge must be free.
Second, because a monopoly of protection is the root of all evil, any territorial expansion of such a monopoly is per se evil too. Every political centralization must be on principle grounds rejected. In turn, every attempt at political decentralization — segregation, separation, secession and so forth — must be supported.
The third basic insight is that a democratic protection monopoly in particular must be rejected as a moral and economic perversity. Majority rule and private property protection are incompatible. The idea of democracy must be ridiculed: it is nothing else but mob rule parading as justice. To be labeled a democrat must be considered the worst of all possible compliments! This does not mean that one may not participate in democratic policies; I will come to that a little bit later.
But one must use democratic means only for defensive purposes; that is, one may use an antidemocratic platform to be elected by an antidemocratic constituency to implement antidemocratic — that is, anti-egalitarian and pro-private property — policies. Or, to put it differently, a person is not honorable because he is democratically elected. If anything, this makes him a suspect. Despite the fact that a person has been elected democratically, he may still be a decent and honorable man; we have heard one before.
From these principles we now come to the problem of application. The basic insights — that is: monopolized protection, a State, will inevitably become an aggressor and lead to defenselessness; and political centralization and democracy are means of extensifying and intensifying exploitation and aggression — while these basic insights give us a general direction in the goal, they are obviously not yet sufficient to define our actions and tell us how to get there.
How can the goal of demonopolized protection and justice possibly be implemented given the present circumstances of centralized — almost world democracy — as at least temporarily our starting point from which we have to begin. Let me try to develop an answer to this question by elaborating first in what respect the problem, and also the solution to it, has changed in the course of the last 150 years — that is, since around the middle of the 19 th century.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Democracy is not liberty, it is not even its objective. I hate when people equate democracy to liberty, political representation, and freedom to live are not the same thing. Democracy's objectives are transparency, and distribution of political power through everyone. You can compare it to socialism, "we all own the land", and yet who actually ends up ruling? Does this ideology make it more efficient? Giving political power to everyone does not create the most fair laws, or efficiency. So why do you think a direct democracy would make it any better, do you not remember the American south used to legally have slavery and discrimination under democracy? These are strong flaws.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
nirgrahamUK: do consumers have to understand injection moulding techniques so that the worlds factories will produce toothbrushes of the right type, construction and with the requisite efficiency? do consumers have to understand the finer details of aero-dynamics in order to enjoy the convenience of air travel ?
Even better, do I have to understand how the combustible engine works in order for me to start my car?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:Even better, do I have to understand how the combustible engine works in order for me to start my car?
We could play this game all day
nirgrahamUK:We could play this game all day
Do I need to know the rules to play the game?BOOSH!
ama gi:Likewise, invent a hypothetical "anarcho-capitalism" is which legal matters are handled by private firms. These private firms do not naturally have an incentive to be honest unless the outsiders are constantly watching out for every indiscretion. Remove public participation, and the system becomes as corrupt as can be.
Well, no. As LS pointed out, market competition provides internal incentives for efficiency and honesty (in addition to the external check of public vigilance). And obviously if you obstruct free competition the system will become corrupt; that's an argument for market anarchism.
In any case, I don't see direct democracy as contradicting market anarchism, because direct democracy is a part of the market. Indeed, the free market is the fullest realization of direct democracy.
Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: I agree, I think an-cap would be worse than what we have now. I don't know, dude. I would rather favor non-rape over rape, no matter how unfeasible it is.
bloomj31: I agree, I think an-cap would be worse than what we have now.
I agree, I think an-cap would be worse than what we have now.
I don't know, dude. I would rather favor non-rape over rape, no matter how unfeasible it is.
In case you missed it minarchists are against rape too.
scineram:In case you missed it minarchists are against rape too.
Ah, except when rape is required to prevent competition in legal systems!
(Use your imagination.)
Exactly. Frankly that is rare.
scineram: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: I agree, I think an-cap would be worse than what we have now. I don't know, dude. I would rather favor non-rape over rape, no matter how unfeasible it is. In case you missed it minarchists are against rape too.
In case you missed it, I made an analogy.
Which, as I indicated, fails. So what?
scineram: Which, as I indicated, fails. So what?
Dig deeper. What is the analogy? Is really the "rape"? Or is it the violation of rights?
Sphairon:A black man's car breaks down in Whitelandia. Whitelandia's jury rules that black people are illegal in Whitelandia and thus, the black man is imprisoned. This has nothing to do with liberty, but everything with putting a bunch of local people with self-reinforcing prejudices into power.
That would happen as well if you put a bunch of private-sector firms in charge. There is no way that lone black man could overcome the purchasing power of all those citizens of Whitelandia.
Conza88:Who killed Socrates and Jesus Christ?
What makes you think that private agencies would not kill Socrates and Jesus Christ?
You are putting these firms on a pedestal and suggesting that the would be incapable of making unjust decisions!
scineram:Which, as I indicated, fails.
Sage: laminustacitus:And yet there is not a single historical case study of such a society lasting. Historical evidence. More historical evidence. Even more historical evidence. Your argument is invalid. laminustacitus:In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand. Sure, if you want to call it that. But be careful to avoid the nirvana fallacy: the relevant issue is which system can best minimize tyranny and protect liberty. And here the answer is market anarchy: the incentive structure of market competition is superior to the incentive structure of government bureaucracy.
Post favorited.
By the way, this thread is pretty convincing in terms of the creation of legal systems in anarchy.
ama gi:What makes you think that private agencies would not kill Socrates and Jesus Christ?
I'm glad you said private agencies; and not private defense agencies - since they would be iniating violence, thus not defending - but aggressing.
They would not be attempting to apply the NAP (basic law code), and thus would be outlaw agencies.
ama gi:You are putting these firms on a pedestal and suggesting that the would be incapable of making unjust decisions!
No. I am not.
For bad decisions there would be an appeal process. The bad decision makers / facilitators reputation would suffer, their customer base would shrink and should they continue, they'll fail.
Can you please list every article / book you've read on natural law, the courts and pda's? I'd be interested to know exactly what the perspective you are coming from is, and what you haven't read.
Cheers.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg: I'm guessing Lam isn't an an-cap. I think Lam indicated before that he likes to receive subsidies and that he is entitled to them by nature of the work he does.
Because throwing vague, petty ad hominem insults around really does prove your argument. Please grow up, and stop this immature mud-slinging.
Sage: laminustacitus:And yet there is not a single historical case study of such a society lasting. Historical evidence.
Historical evidence.
A list that someone states is historical evidence, but because I don't have access to his works I have nothing to prove your assertion with.
Sage:More historical evidence.
Polycentric authority, even polycentric legal authority, does not equal anarcho-capitalist. If that were so, most of European history prior to the Reformation would be anarcho-capitalist. Furthermore, polycentric authority can exist within a state, as shown by Elinor Ostrom's work on the preservation of common pool resources.
Sage:Even more historical evidence.
This is not a historical analysis, rather it is a purely theoretical one.
Overall, it would be a lot easier to prove my post unsound by simply giving a single example of a true anarcho-capitalist society lasting. Keep in mind, I do not deny that such systems can exist, really I deny that they can exist, and prove a stable social framework for an extended period of time. It might be even easier to show that other systems have only done so under extraordinary circumstances. Oh well, the fact that you could not outright slay my point (even while having the materials to do so at hand if your links do the job - I contend that two definitely do not and one is essentially an example of passing the buck) with a direct (e.g. the period of geographical X between years y, and z in which justice was arbitrated by groups showing the general characteristics of PDAs) shows that I my point is still pretty sound. In fact, I do leave it open for you, Sage, to give me an answer in the form I gave to show that my statement is unsound, and if you are able to do that with sound historical facts, I will withdraw my assertion above.
Sage:Your argument is invalid.
If my argument is wrong, then it is not invalid, rather it is unsound. The two are technical terms, both roughly and shortly explained: "invalid" is when the premises do not necessitate the conclusion, "unsound" is when the argument is valid yet it uses wrong premises. Generally, if you believe that an argument is wrong, it is "unsound", "invalid" is when there is a problem in its logical form.
Sage: laminustacitus:In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand. Sure, if you want to call it that. But be careful to avoid the nirvana fallacy: the relevant issue is which system can best minimize tyranny and protect liberty. And here the answer is market anarchy: the incentive structure of market competition is superior to the incentive structure of government bureaucracy.
This would be a pretty sound argument if there were an anarcho-capitalist society built in a society that is tabula rasa. But, that throws out all of the historical and institutional effects that will be at play, all of which are empirical, and, really, it is the historical, and institutional effects that will have the greatest effect over the success of market-anarchy.
If there is one big reason for which I reject market-anarchy, it is for the fact that it essentially demands that a system be applied to a society, without any regard for the institutions at play, thus rejecting the only proven method of social change: gradual piecemeal change. When we are in a day in which market-anarchy is a viable alternative, I might become one, but it is not a viable alternative in today's situation.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke