I've recognized that a lot of you consider yourselves anarchists, particularly anarcho-capitalists or market anarchists. Anarchy, by definition, means "without government." But what exactly is government? To govern is, in my opinion, best defined as "to control the actions or behavior of" by the American Heritage Dictionary. The suffix -ment means a condition or result. Therefore . . .
Government-n.-The condition or result of controlled actions or behavior.
So the assumption that "government is force" is correct. But this doesn't necessarily have to be a centrally planned force, does it? Without government, couldn't there be an easy opportunity for a loosely-banded "gang rule" causing destruction of life, liberty and property when no one's looking, without established penalties of prison? Regardless of the lack of established justice, isn't the state of gang rule itself a contradiction of anarchy?
So comment if you want on my observations, which have probably come up numerous times in various forms. But I suppose my real question is: Is anarchy sustainable?
I've often heard the argument that a libertarian society requires people to be perfect beings, and to me this is ridiculous. But in regards to anarchy, I can understand these speculations. Anarchy, in my mind, can't exist unless everyone is perfect. People are completely capable of controlling others. That's why I lean toward the minarchist-type government, commonly called a "Night Watchman" state. That doesn't make me a statist. I just don't think a stateless society is possible, so the best option is a minimal state, limited by maximum individual rights.
We usually define government as a territorial monopolist. More generally, anarcho capitalists oppose aggression: both wandering and stationary bandits.
resist 272727:Without government, couldn't there be an easy opportunity for a loosely-banded "gang rule" causing destruction of life, liberty and property when no one's looking, without established penalties of prison? Regardless of the lack of established justice, isn't the state of gang rule itself a contradiction of anarchy?
resist272727:So comment if you want on my observations, which have probably come up numerous times in various forms. But I suppose my real question is: Is anarchy sustainable?
resist272727:I've often heard the argument that a libertarian society requires people to be perfect beings, and to me this is ridiculous. But in regards to anarchy, I can understand these speculations. Anarchy, in my mind, can't exist unless everyone is perfect. People are completely capable of controlling others.
resist272727:That's why I lean toward the minarchist-type government, commonly called a "Night Watchman" state. That doesn't make me a statist. I just don't think a stateless society is possible, so the best option is a minimal state, limited by maximum individual rights.
Moreover, even if you could check or freeze a minarchist government, we still oppose it because of the misesian calculation and hayekian knowledge problem. Its simply more efficient to let a price system, reflecting consumer demand and real world scarcity, determine optimal capital structures.
I've been in a lot of contemplation about anarco capitalism(AC) and have one question that I hope to get answered. Assuming that AC is effective at curbing violence in society to levels whereby it becomes inconsequential to have security and demand for use of the security force begins to diminish significantly in the newly safe environment. What could possibly result from this scenario? I have my own ideas, but I want to hear someone in favor of anarcho capitalism explain first.
The same thing that happens when demand for a certain good decreases. Capital structures adjust to the new prices. But speculators and forecasters have an impact on price too, and keep capital structures looking towards the long term. So its not like we're going to eradicate crime, then throw away all our guns, and watch crime explode again. Not sure if thats what you were worried about...
However, if there is little crime in the area and profits cease to be made, won't their be cuts in the security forces (like personelle etc.) thus weakening the security forces ability to ward off criminals in the area who might wish to plunder the citizens.. I'm not saying there would cease to be guns but thier may not be enough guns to counter an invading force.
If the people are plundered, they will no longer be able to afford the private security force and thus the profits for keeping one in the area will be nill so the security force may decide to opt out of the area.
It's not easy to predict the market. I don't feel very confident trying to predict the market in specific scenarios like this. There are so many things that you could've not unaccounted for.
I will say is that I don't think that people are going to just allow themselves to be enslaved easily once they're free.
Micheal:However, if there is little crime in the area and profits cease to be made, won't their be cuts in the security forces (like personelle etc.) thus weakening the security forces ability to ward off criminals in the area who might wish to plunder the citizens.. I'm not saying there would cease to be guns but thier may not be enough guns to counter an invading force.
Micheal: If the people are plundered, they will no longer be able to afford the private security force and thus the profits for keeping one in the area will be nill so the security force may decide to opt out of the area.
I'm just trying to look at things from the plunder's perspective and how to maximize profit for myself. I am sorry for asking so much, I just want to know how plunder's are going to be countered in an evironment where profit will be the primary motive of protection by an organization.
Now let me take a deeper look into your idea of speculation. Speculation is about moving resources to areas where profits are to be maximized. However, (and correct me if I am wrong), for the security firm, it would appear that speculation would be used to prevent losses, not so much as gain profits. After all, their would most likely be less demand for a security company that failed to protect its cilents.
Seeing how reasources are limited, as a leader of theives I would use the information by market speculators to actually help me in staging attacks. Here's how I would do it. I attack a small town with little protection. Once that town is attacked, all the nearby towns will feel threatened and I would let the market do its thing. Money and reasources would then begin to move to those towns from other towns. So naturally I would then determine not to attack the newly protected towns and make a move on towns where resources are moved from. So in the end, speculation may in fact help me in my endeavors and will also cost more to society since I will Purposely create a malinvestment problem.
And now that I mentioned this diabolical plan another issue is brought to mind. The problem I see with using the market for protection is that the market depends on success. In issues dealing with security, such as war, success is often times uncertain and therefore soldiers may need to be paid, even when failures occur so that troops can be moved where they are needed not where they are profitable.
Once again, sorry for the troublesome inquiry. I am new to the concept of anarcho capitalism and just want some of this explained by me to people with more experience in the topic.
Why attack the town? Just to scare everyone? What exactly was the point of attacking them? Don't you think that the people in the area are going to come after you and your gang?
Why would some towns be left weaker after you attacked the first town? How would you even know what towns would be weaker?
As for your last bit on war, I don't really see a problem there. If they (the security company) really were hurting for dollars, wouldn't they just raise their prices? Also, this wouldn't be an offensive war, right? We'd be talking about defense of private property, so I don't think you'd have problem getting the population to support you and even take an increase in price.
Michael:Now let me take a deeper look into your idea of speculation. Speculation is about moving resources to areas where profits are to be maximized. However, (and correct me if I am wrong), for the security firm, it would appear that speculation would be used to prevent losses, not so much as gain profits. After all, their would most likely be less demand for a security company that failed to protect its cilents.
Michael:Seeing how reasources are limited, as a leader of theives I would use the information by market speculators to actually help me in staging attacks. Here's how I would do it. I attack a small town with little protection. Once that town is attacked, all the nearby towns will feel threatened and I would let the market do its thing. Money and reasources would then begin to move to those towns from other towns. So naturally I would then determine not to attack the newly protected towns and make a move on towns where resources are moved from. So in the end, speculation may in fact help me in my endeavors and will also cost more to society since I will Purposely create a malinvestment problem.
You're basically saying that since the market is short-term oriented, the long term goes to crap. From the behaviour of other markets, such as oil, this does not appear to be the case. We always hear about government shortages of X, not free market shortages. X can be shoes, or security.
Michael:And now that I mentioned this diabolical plan another issue is brought to mind. The problem I see with using the market for protection is that the market depends on success. In issues dealing with security, such as war, success is often times uncertain and therefore soldiers may need to be paid, even when failures occur so that troops can be moved where they are needed not where they are profitable.
Michael:Once again, sorry for the troublesome inquiry. I am new to the concept of anarcho capitalism and just want some of this explained by me to people with more experience in the topic.
I thank you sieben for understanding that it is more important for me to know than for me to be right.
Now back to our discussion. Your claim that it would be better for society for you to attack me and round me up before I can go ahead and attack the next town, granted you are correct, but as a company you would still need to ensure the safety of your clients and often times these don't mix.
But however, I have come to the conclusion on my own based on your idea that by catching me, you can restore your good name to the masses and an insurance policy can be offered by the company if it fails to protect its clients so now I can say that I am moving closer to anarcho capitalism than I was prior to our conversation.
The other problem I have is what would happen if a security firm were to either go rouge or stage events to obtain greater profit, but I will leave that to the article you posted to analyze. If I have anymore concerns I will ask. Thank you for the conversation it was very enlightening.
kstigs: Why attack the town? Just to scare everyone? What exactly was the point of attacking them? Don't you think that the people in the area are going to come after you and your gang? Why would some towns be left weaker after you attacked the first town? How would you even know what towns would be weaker? As for your last bit on war, I don't really see a problem there. If they (the security company) really were hurting for dollars, wouldn't they just raise their prices? Also, this wouldn't be an offensive war, right? We'd be talking about defense of private property, so I don't think you'd have problem getting the population to support you and even take an increase in price.
Why attack a town, to plunder it of course. I am creating my own socialist government j/k Also, the only thing my gang would be afraid of is the security company b/c after plundering the town I would have stripped them of their belongings. They would be too busy repairing their lost property to deal with me as their survival would depend on it. (I would be an evil plunderer haha)
If the prices rise that will only be to my advantage since I will be draining resources from the people and thus be able widdle away at their ability to obtain help from a security company. I can know which town is weaker based on how resources are moved from one town to another. A convienent way to do this is see what are the prices for security in various towns. They will be higher where they are most demanded and lower where they are least demanded. Once the prices are leveled out and show some consitancy, I can tell where troops were moved from to where they are moved to since naturally the company will want to move its reasources to a place they will obtain the most profit. However, this problem was solved by another poster as mentioned that it would be better if the security company caught me. I later speculated that it would also restore the confidence in the company to do so and therefore it is neccissary that the company accomplish this task (something that the governement does not have to be concerned over).
My primary fear is that a Fabian strategy would be set up by security companies because they would be too afraid to leave their towns unprotected, but my earlier post and with the help of seiben I determined that my concerns were false. A security company can act like Scipio to its own benefit. (In fact it was this historical event that sparked my thoughts on this subject in the first place).
Michael:Now back to our discussion. Your claim that it would be better for society for you to attack me and round me up before I can go ahead and attack the next town, granted you are correct, but as a company you would still need to ensure the safety of your clients and often times these don't mix.
There are remarkebly few examples of the free rider problem in free markets. What happens is that individuals transfer their liabilities to someone else via insurance. So if I live in a city, instead of hiring security to go catch random muggers who will probably never threaten *me*, I can buy an insurance policy that covers me if i'm mugged. Now the insurance firm loses money if I get mugged because they have to pay out. So its in their interests to round up muggers who might threaten their customers. If for some reason, there are a bunch of insurance firms and they start free-riding off eachother, one firm can just offer to buy up all the liabilities of the others since it would be able to reduce liabilities further in a non-free rider environment. Or, if its only like 5-6, it would be pretty easy to sign a Dominant Assurance Contract, that only goes thru if everyone signs onto it.
The long and short of it is, if it is profitable to do something, we can figure out a way to do it.
Michael:But however, I have come to the conclusion on my own based on your idea that by catching me, you can restore your good name to the masses and an insurance policy can be offered by the company if it fails to protect its clients so now I can say that I am moving closer to anarcho capitalism than I was prior to our conversation.
Michael:The other problem I have is what would happen if a security firm were to either go rouge or stage events to obtain greater profit, but I will leave that to the article you posted to analyze. If I have anymore concerns I will ask. Thank you for the conversation it was very enlightening.
I'll buttress it by saying that people don't sign unenforcable contracts. If an agency somehow had the power to "go rogue" and start killing people, there could be no accountability with this agency and its contract would be unenforceable. People wouldn't sign it and they'd go broke. If the market ever needed such large scale defense that a monolithic defense agency were needed, the firms bidding for the contract with insurance companies would not only compete on price, but on accountability. So maybe one firm offers to have a bomb implanted in the heads of all its CEOs, and if the customers 3/4 majority vote on it, it will kill the CEOs if they go rogue or something. Its a silly example but its the most obvious one I can think of :P
Michael:Why attack a town, to plunder it of course. I am creating my own socialist government j/k Also, the only thing my gang would be afraid of is the security company b/c after plundering the town I would have stripped them of their belongings. They would be too busy repairing their lost property to deal with me as their survival would depend on it. (I would be an evil plunderer haha)
Good luck plundering them into the stone age and then avoiding the security companies of the area. That sort of destruction is usually perpetrated by the state.
Power (force) is not a good/service that is subject to market forces. It's simply more powerful then them (pun intended).
Unlike all other goods/services...
1. Theoretically: The more power (force) its provider has, the higher the price the customer pays. It's quite a peculiar "good/service" that way: A higher "supply" of something resulting in a higher price to the consumer -- quite unlike the shoes market.
2. Empirically: Power (force) markets seem to unavoidably converge into territorial monopolies. There is no evidence of a free (non-monopolist) market in power (force) while there are plenty of examples of free markets in all other goods/services through history and across mankind.
Z1235:1. Theoretically: The more power (force) its provider has, the higher the price the customer pays. It's quite a peculiar "good/service" that way: A higher "supply" of something resulting in a higher price to the consumer -- quite unlike the shoes market.
z1235:2. Empirically: Power (force) markets seem to unavoidably converge into territorial monopolies. There is no evidence of a free (non-monopolist) market in power (force) while there are plenty of examples of free markets in all other goods/services through history and across mankind.
I can see your argument with the insurance firm. I see the security agency kinda like being an insurance company and really the idea of the free rider is not a problem for me. I say this because if there is an invasion by some outside force, it is in the interest of the company to protect the whole town (or even a band of companies if the situation calls for it)
Why? Because if the town were attacked, it would take too long to discern who is a client and who isn't during an operation to repulse the enemy so the company would have to protect the interest of all the people (whether it is their client or not). Companies would also have to band together, ignoring who's property is to be protected by whom since the whole of the commons needs protecting to ensure that their clients property is protected .A privatized fire agency would work the same way in case of a fire (even a small one which needs to be stopped before it spreads and damages their clients property).
The only difference is that the free rider may be billed or just won't have any insurance claim to make on the damages done by invasion or fire.
This has been really helpful for me discussing this.
still a few more kinks i need to work out before i call myself an anarcho capitalist (i am very picky with calling myself anything at this point). This has been a great foundation for me to start from. thanx
What law are these private services going to abide by?
Michael:I see the security agency kinda like being an insurance company and really the idea of the free rider is not a problem for me.
resist272727:What law are these private services going to abide by?
If I ever get off my lazy @$$ I'm supposed to be writing an essay about the economics of slavery, which would be relevant to this conversation because the whole idea of attacking other people is to expropriate them. i.e. enslave them.
Michael:Because if the town were attacked, it would take too long to discern who is a client and who isn't during an operation to repulse the enemy so the company would have to protect the interest of all the people (whether it is their client or not).
OR, as the company (men paid to wield guns for profit) calculates that the potential losses of fighting a stronger force (and the potential destruction of its current client base) are a far inferior alternative vs. staying alive and being paid by a more reliable source, a "merger & acquisition" (or surrender, some would say) may not be a bad idea. The impending ostracism by their former clients would be alleviated by the newly merged PDA offering everyone deals they can't refuse. Thus a new territorial power (force) monopoly is established and everyone is happy -- that is, until a new, more powerful force walks in and...
Just like the shoe market.
^Again, operating under the premise that slavery is profitable
^Staying alive trumps profitability. Also, "slavery" and "voluntary" are in the eye of the gun-holder as power influences everyone's subjective preferences. You really shouldn't refuse a deal you can't refuse.
z1235: Michael:Because if the town were attacked, it would take too long to discern who is a client and who isn't during an operation to repulse the enemy so the company would have to protect the interest of all the people (whether it is their client or not). OR, as the company (men paid to wield guns for profit) calculates that the potential losses of fighting a stronger force (and the potential destruction of its current client base) are a far inferior alternative vs. staying alive and being paid by a more reliable source, a "merger & acquisition" (or surrender, some would say) may not be a bad idea. The impending ostracism by their former clients would be alleviated by the newly merged PDA offering everyone deals they can't refuse. Thus a new territorial power (force) monopoly is established and everyone is happy -- that is, until a new, more powerful force walks in and... Just like the shoe market.
This is a very good point and one worth noting. Maybe upon further discussion we can come to some sort of revelation on this issue.
Another problem that might be inherent NOT having the monopoly if the use of force within a given territory is infighting between the various security forces which will hinder the territories ability to repel the invasion. With so much profits being tied to glory, we may have the exact opposite of your problem whereby individuals within the security forces may decide to take rash actions to incur greater benefits of fame as well. This is a persistant problem amongst drug lords who hire gangs out to protect their territorial monopoly for their goods.
Through a monopoly of force, these problems will be limited and easily rectifiable by the government who can have a more consistant stream of resources in times of emergency.
Although I must say that I disagree with your premise on the issue that companies will have to merge in the face of a stronger force, thus forming into a monopoly. If a group of companies feel threatened by another company or group of companies, they can merge into an alliance to repel the enemy, at least on a temporal basis. A temporary pact may indeed ensue much like the how alliances were formed in the fuedal era whereby they can retain their soveriegnty but still cooperate in difficult military operations. Just because the companies decide to cooperate to repel invasion does not mean they have to give up thier soveriegnty as a company. If states can do it, I don't see why companies can't.
Michael:Although I must say that I disagree with your premise on the issue that companies will have to merge in the face of a stronger force, thus forming into a monopoly. If a group of companies feel threatened by another company or group of companies, they can merge into an alliance to repel the enemy, at least on a temporal basis. A temporary pact may indeed ensue much like the how alliances were formed in the fuedal era whereby they can retain their soveriegnty but still cooperate in difficult military operations. Just because the companies decide to cooperate to repel invasion does not mean they have to give up thier soveriegnty as a company. If states can do it, I don't see why companies can't.
This doesn't contradict my proposition that territorial power (force) monopolies are inevitable, semantics (PDAs, gangs, states, mercenaries, etc.) notwithstanding. A "no poison" preference is not a solution to a "choose your poison" problem.
Z.
Wouldn't it be possible for police services to pay criminals to cause crime in order to increase their own demand?
z1235:^Staying alive trumps profitability.
z1235:Also, "slavery" and "voluntary" are in the eye of the gun-holder as power influences everyone's subjective preferences. You really shouldn't refuse a deal you can't refuse.
Regardless, you still have yet to put out an argument that slavery is profitable for self-funded slaveowners. If it isn't the most profitable thing, as I argue, then there won't be any incentives to choose it over alternatives.
resist272727:Wouldn't it be possible for police services to pay criminals to cause crime in order to increase their own demand?
Too complicated. Once your power (force) monopoly is established you can just send your agent to knock on every door and offer your fabulous "protection" package deal. Every "No thanks" would be answered by "Oh ok, we'll see." and a couple of bricks to their windows the following night. Then send the smiling sales agent again tomorrow. Such is the beauty of a power (force) monopoly, and it is why it has been in such high demand through mankind's history and all across the planet.
z1235:Once your power (force) monopoly is established
Moreover, what do you think the solution to this monopoly problem is? Is there any reason we can't tackle a monopoly with a bunch of our own PDAs?
Its also kind of funny that you think they could just throw bricks through my window. I mean if people weren't expecting it they might be caught off guard, but there'd be no reason my apartment complex or neighborhood association couldn't purchase their own security. The big bad PDA might be able to trump our security but it would by a pyrrhic victory.
Sieben:Moreover, what do you think the solution to this monopoly problem is? Is there any reason we can't tackle a monopoly with a bunch of our own PDAs?
Fine. What's stopping you now?
Btw, when and where has a "tackled monopoly with a bunch of our own PDAs" not been replaced with another power (force) monopoly? This time will be different, once again?
z1235:Fine. What's stopping you now?
z1235:Btw, when and where has a "tackled monopoly with a bunch of our own PDAs" not been replaced with another power (force) monopoly? This time will be different, once again?
Sieben:The state is not a monopolist PDA. Unlike the PDA, it does not pay its own costs.
A monopolist PDA also doesn't pay its own costs. Its "customers" do. Your inability to see that state = monopolist PDA = power (force) monopolist is but one example of my proposition that power (force) affects subjective preferences and valuations. You are attaching significance to trivial semantics.
Sieben:And they certainly don't do it at a net profit...
They most certainly do it at a net profit for themselves. Just like every other power (force) monopoly known to mankind. Thus, the consistently high demand for it.
Sieben:...things are rapidly changing.
Have they ever stopped doing so?
z1235:You are attaching significance to trivial semantics.
z1235:They most certainly do it at a net profit for themselves. Just like every other power (force) monopoly known to mankind. Thus, the consistently high demand for it.
z1235:Have they ever stopped doing so?
Sieben:There is a difference between an organization that has to go door to door forcing people at gunpoint to pay them, and an organization that enjoys superficially low operating costs because people think it is legitimate.
I'm confused. Which witch is which?
Sieben:Public perception is everything.
I'm glad we agree.
Sieben:Yeah America is actually earning more than 1 trillion dollars/year in Iraq...
Semantics games again. Your "America" above contains both the monopolists and their customers. Ask yourself who pays for the 1 trillion and you'll discover how the power monopolist always ends up with a net profit.
Sieben:They might not stop changing for a while. But 1350 --> 1450 is practically the same compared to 1900 --> 2000. The differences really make a big difference :/
What doesn't seem to change is the young humans' conviction that their time is the time of most change ever.
z1235:I'm confused. Which witch is which?
z1235:I'm glad we agree.
z1235:Semantics games again. Your "America" above contains both the monopolists and their customers. Ask yourself who pays for the 1 trillion and you'll discover how the power monopolist always ends up with a net profit.
z1235:What doesn't seem to change is young humans' conviction that their time is the time of most change ever.
The uncertainty in estimating low probability events is astronomical.
Sieben:Don't patronize me to save face.
Didn't mean to sound patronizing. I'm not that old myself. I don't care much for my face, either. I've enjoyed our exchanges and I thank you for the 'thought food' you've so generously provided me.
Okay. Sorry to have been so defensive... I'm sure you know some people on these forums are more interested in preserving their ego than having a real discussion. Glad we're both interested in education and progress.
Sieben:Glad we're both interested in education and progress.
Michael:However, if there is little crime in the area and profits cease to be made, won't their be cuts in the security forces (like personelle etc.) thus weakening the security forces ability to ward off criminals in the area who might wish to plunder the citizens.. I'm not saying there would cease to be guns but thier may not be enough guns to counter an invading force.
A cut in staffing of specialist "security forces" doesn't equate to a weaking of security: people can defend themselves (and the former security people are still there, too, right?). And if "the area" in the above is smaller than the entire world (or solar system, or wherever there are people), help can be hired from outside, too.
Sieben:Again, operating under the premise that slavery is profitable
It's more than that...it's also assuming the employees of the rogue security firm will go along with it. Why would they? I'd expect an internal revolt under the current statism (at least in free-ish countries); moreso among those brought up in a free society.