hi guys! I'm new here, though I've lurked for a little bit, and find a lot of your posts very fascinating. :) I would advocate a much redder variety of anarchism, so I have some common ground with you right-libertarian folks, but naturally differ on the (fairly large) issue of property ownership and capitalism. Thus, as a newbie to anarcho-capitalist thought, and building on that common ground, I'm interested in understanding your opinions better and have a question:
IANAE, but it seems to me that one equilibrium of an anarcho-capitalist society is where one or two organization or person's power snowballs in a manner like this.
I would assume that as a anarcho-capitalist, you would find a dictatorship or strong centralized governing body an example of a degenerate case of a society. Would not this snowballed wealthy organization have the capital to hire police, act vilely and encroach on other's freedoms, and thereby become a government, and cause the anarcho-capitalist society to cease to exist?
Disclaimer, before you think I'm an idiot: I'm probably misunderstanding aspects of your views. Also, I'm sure this question has been asked before because it seems like a very common initial reaction, so I'm just curious what the official (or your personal) opinion on it is, and how this is not an equilibrium.
happy halloween :) --peterz
1. Yes
2&3. You can only become richer if you produce things that people want to trade with you. This means you can only become richer if you help others. If you buy property without being productive you are really only making yourself poorer. The way to become productive is to spend less than you earn, creating savings. Then you invest your savings into production.
See:
I would advocate a much redder variety of anarchism
Scariest Halloween ever!
Welcome. One could get into a long explanation of why such a scenario, though perhaps possible, is not probable. But I'm only interested enough to briefly present what I think are the two primary arguments:
1) A trade involves two-parties. A person can only acquire someone else's property by inducing that someone else to give up the property. It's ridiculously simplistic to say, "And then, some greedy people buy up everything." Other people have to first sell their property to these would-be dictators. As a rich businessman buys more and more property, the price of the remaining property will likely rise. And even if the rich businessman has enough income to pay the theoretical market price, the remaining property owners are not homo-economicus; they may refuse to sell even for all the money in the world. It's not too far-fetched to think that people would be alarmed by a small number of businessmen accumulating most of the property around, and thus band together to resist the rich businessmen. This could make security more expensive as well.
2) There is an issue of political legitimacy. Assuming a rich man were to successfully buy an entire city, this does not mean he has the same discretionary power as a monarch. People may respect the rich man's property claims, but will they continue to do so in the face of oppression? Will they tolerate his monopoly power? Is money a strong enough motivator to keep the rich man's hired goons (presumably born and raised in a liberty-loving society) loyal to him? The state can do things otherwise considered illegal because it is believed to be justified in doing them; this belief greatly lowers the cost of murder, theft, fraud, etc. for the state. Without this belief, it is very expensive to get away with these crimes.
Again, it's possible that an anarcho-capitalist society would fall back into statism or some kind of feudal order. It is possible that our ideal social order will, through a series of unforeseen events, morph into its ideological opposite. But this can be said of any proposed system. The important question is which system has the most effective checks and balances built into it, and I think "anarcho-capitalism" is the answer.
peterz:hi guys! I'm new here, though I've lurked for a little bit, and find a lot of your posts very fascinating. :) I would advocate a much redder variety of anarchism, so I have some common ground with you right-libertarian folks, but naturally differ on the (fairly large) issue of property ownership and capitalism.
Hi peterz! Welcome!
Ancap is simply a system philosophy based around the non-aggression principle. Capitalism per se is only possible (in our conception) where none may aggress, so any notion of capitalism re: ancap is one of non-aggression.
1. Yes (although one would not "barter" money since it is money that is used to overcome the limitations of direct-exchange "barter", except in the case of currency exchange. See; the problem of "the double coincidence of wants")
2,3, & 4. This statement is unclear. What would a "rate of increase in income" be an exponent of? In a lawful setting, my ability to increase my income (in order to increase my property) is limited by my ability to produce. Anarchism does not assert that there be no laws, rather it asserts the precise opposite. It asserts that law is an a priori condition for human interaction. Anarchism simply seeks to abolish social institutions which do not reflect, and thus interfere, with the understanding of this fact. The unwelcome scenario you describe is naturally unlawful. That people will cooperate for the purpose of oppressing others is a feature common to nearly all societies. The antedote to this relentless tide of oppression is the social institution of individual freedom. The more people are free to act then the more they are able to trade. The more people are able to trade the more each is able to realize their own vision. The better able one is to achieve one's vision the greater the incentive to protect those social bonds (trade) which made such wealth possible. Those social bonds then serve as a valuable bulwark against the tyranny of the marauders. Thus in societies who have better protected the institution of private property and (most importantly) the ability to trade it, we see less tyranny than in those with weak private property and trade institutions.
Welcome,
peterz:Assume an individual (rational or not) decided to adopt to the strategy of relentlessly increasing his or her ownership of property. The rate of increase in income would be exponential.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that all it takes to amass property is one's decision to adopt it as a goal/strategy? The only reason why you personally don't own half of the planet is that you hadn't yet woken up one morning and decided to adopt it is a goal?
Z.
No, the chances of me personally becoming a billionaire are very slim. However, in our current mixed economy, the state where *somebody* will become a billionaire tends to occur (and one that happened -- there are many billionaires in the current global mixed economy). I don't think I really phrased that well now that I look over that again: my point is that it seems like an equilibrium or common degenerate case that one or a few people will tend to amass almost all property.
Now, if you introduce the constant threat of upheaval or resisting oppression, then I suppose it seems much less of a risk. However, I guess I'm still not convinced that such a society, although founded on peace and non-aggression as you claim, might not degenerate into a cycle of aggression. IANAE, but I would argue that the reason is that although you might say that freedom loving individuals would refuse to contribute their services to what seems to be an oppressive accumulation force, this situation hides a prisoner's dilemma, where the equilibrium would be on their offering services.
This is because if they do offer services, then they'll at least get an initial benefit (ie, the transaction of their employment would be favorable), but risk contributing to an oppressive force, and if they don't, they won't get that little benefit, but somebody else might, and the oppressive force will exist nonetheless. I would argue that it is parallel to the overfishing of the North Sea, where the equilibrium ends up being EVERYONE contributing to the oppressive accumulation of power.
Anyway, I actually have to go right now, but I hope to continue this conversation later! (I love talking economics and politics... =) )
--peterz
peterz:there are many billionaires in the current global mixed economy
Doesn't this fact (a multitude of millionaires and billionaires, as opposed to just a handful of them) refute your argument? How many millionaires & billionaires (per million people) would be "optimal", as opposed to "degenerate", according to you?
Btw, try turning $100 into $300, $10k into $30k, or $1million into $3million, and let me know how easy it is -- of course, assuming it is all done through voluntary exchanges of capital and labor.