Are you saying that well functioning markets can only happen under aggresive monopolies?
No. I am just saying I don't think well developed markets are likely to arise in statelessness.
Eric: Are you saying that well functioning markets can only happen under aggresive monopolies? No. I am just saying I don't think well developed markets are likely to arise in statelessness.
Why?
Becasue there are many different scenarios that could happen. Why would markets develop and people cooperate peacefully in a marketpalce as opposed to any other of the scenarios?
@Brutus: I'm not aware of any society that has ever defined children to be the property of their parents nor am I aware of any an-cap theories that would suggest that children are property.
It is rarely the case that a parent's mistreatment of a child is so severe as to warrant immediate intervention. If a stranger were to intervene against a parent, I think the right way to adjudicate the issue would be for the stranger to appeal to the child's other relatives for support. Let's say you are beating your child and I step onto your property and physically restrain you in order to allow the child to escape. Later, you sue me for trespassing, assault, battery and unlawful restraint. I believe that, legally, I should be in a very precarious position since it is rarely the case that strangers have the interests of a child more at heart than do the biological parents of that child. In fact, all genetic strangers should be treated as potential child-exploiters in the eyes of the law (cui bono). However, if I can recruit the other genetic relatives of the child to support my actions, then that may help in justifying how I acted, even if I did, in fact, violate otherwise well-established property rights. This is based on my theory that the law should assign a hierarchy of rights in the care of a child based on relatedness to the child. Basically, the parents have the highest right to care for a child, then the grandparents, and so on.
Clayton -
Becasue there are many different scenarios that could happen.
And what makes those scenarios more likely? I could imagine a thousand paths a ball could follow being dropped from 5 feet, but that doesn't mean the outcome of the ball hitting the ground after a second or two is unlikely.
Why would markets develop and people cooperate peacefully in a marketpalce as opposed to any other of the scenarios?
Why would markets develop in a marketplace? Did you want to rephrase that?
A market is where exchanges take place. The nature of exchange is voluntary. Perhaps it cannot be predicted with certainty that anarchy would likely imply a marketplace (though I and many others here would argue the opposite), but it can be predicted with certainty that no alternative social system can imply a marketplace, for an alternative to anarchy implies a state, a state implies aggression, and aggression is the negation of a marketplace.
Eric:Becasue there are many different scenarios that could happen. Why would markets develop and people cooperate peacefully in a marketpalce as opposed to any other of the scenarios?
Don't shift the burden of proof Eric. You made a claim, I am asking you to substantiate it. How do you know what would and would not happen?
Why would I want to rephrae something that I didn't say.
I dont understand what you are saying here. We currently have a state and markets
How exactly is this an excuse/justification for statism? If anything you want swift action for future uncertainty, not sluggish/neglected action a state brings. If anything your concernss should drive you more to doubt monopolistic governance than anything else.
I don't know what would and would not happen. But I don't see any reason why statelesness would look anything likie your plan for society as opposed to anything else. If I had to put my money on it though, I would predict mass panic. However I do not think it is wise to risk civil society on some pipedream.
Based on the little emperical evidence there is, a stateless society doesn't look very appealing.
You said almost exactly what I claimed.
Why would markets develop [...] in a marketpalce [...]?"
See?
I dont understand what you are saying here. We currently have a state and markets.
Then contest one of my premises. Your form is really sloppy.
I don't know what would and would not happen. But I don't see any reason why statelesness would look anything likie your plan for society as opposed to anything else.
You're shifitng the burden of proof here once again. You've basically said nothing so far, but that you aren't convinced by an-cap arguments. Why are you not convinced by an-cap arguments?
And I suppose the recent account of states provides an appealing case for statism? Also, do you reject economic theory?
Brutus: In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?
I say to the man, "Sir, I will pay you 15 silver ounces for the custody of your kid, 5 silver ounces less for each additional time you hit the kid, or 0 silver ounces if the kid dies." Secretly, I will pay up to 30 silver ounces if a competing bidder (bring it on, relatives or anyone else) or the man counteroffers, else I will walk away. Regardless if the man accepts, rejects, or counteroffers, my gun stays holstered, so long as the man's gun, if any, stays holstered (or the man does not charge me if he is unarmed). Should I gain custody of the kid, I will put the kid to work. No state worship school for him. If the kid decides that completing his apprenticeship from me is not worth it (keep in mind that at 5 years old, I will have to teach him/her prerequisites, like reading, so apprenticing him can take many years), then I threaten to cease custody and let the kid (or somebody else) be responsible for taking care of himself. I will see if the kid changes his mind. Financial independence or bust. I am remorseless. (I wait for somebody on the Left to call me a adoptive parent child enslaver, who sits a child at my office sweatshop. I wait for somebody on the non-Left to berate me for not letting a fourth party intrude into a mutual exchange of the custody of the child between the man and me and pocket any of the silver ounces in a paperwork-generator case that could have all gone to the man.)
"In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?"
"It is worth mentioning that the ownership right stemming from production finds its natural limitation only when, as in the case of children, the thing produced is itself another actor-producer. According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else. Hence, not only can a child expect not to be physically aggressed against but as the owner of his body a child has the right, in particular, to abandon his parents once he is physically able to run away from them and say "no" to their possible attempts to recapture him. Parents only have special rights regarding their child - stemming from their unique status as the child's producers - insofar as they (and no one else) can rightfully claim to be the child's trustee as long as the child is physically unable to run away and say "no."[8]" ~ Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, n.9 to ch. 2, on p. 212; emphasis added.
Attempt to stop it, find out the accusations / charges / reason for beating the boy... i.e was he the criminal aggressor or not.
Eric:But I don't see any reason why statelesness would look anything likie your plan for society as opposed to anything else.
Pray tell, what exactly is my plan for society?
Eric:If I had to put my money on it though, I would predict mass panic.
Why would you bet on that?
Eric:However I do not think it is wise to risk civil society on some pipedream.
What is a civil society?
Eric:Based on the little emperical evidence there is, a stateless society doesn't look very appealing.
What is a stateless society?
Conza, your quote styling is miserable as usual. I can't tell if you are replying to me or not, so before you spit the dummy and flip out because you're paranoid people are ignoring you, maybe you should have read the rest of the thread before replying.
Also, Hoppe's theory of natural property and $5 will get you a Starbuck's coffee.
liberty student: Conza, your quote styling is miserable as usual. I can't tell if you are replying to me or not, so before you spit the dummy and flip out because you're paranoid people are ignoring you, maybe you should have read the rest of the thread before replying.
Conza88 was replying to the OP and quoting Hoppe to support Conza88's answer.
(P.S. Instead of using the broken text editor, I find it faster to click the Source button and enter the HTML tags myself whenever I want to quote somebody.)
@ Liberty Student
Ease up turbo.
Conza88: "According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else." ~ Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, n.9 to ch. 2, on p. 212; emphasis added.
So according to Hoppe's quote of the natural theory of property, self-ownership starts at birth and no earlier? As far as I am aware of in AE literature, Conservative Christians only have an appeal to faith if they argue that self-ownership starts at conception, so is this correct? The establishment of self-ownership affects at least one of the dilemmas I posted.
I was asking why markets would develop to begin with. I was not assuming that there was a preexisting marketplace.
What you said didn't make sense.
"but it can be predicted with certainty that no alternative social system can imply a marketplace, for an alternative to anarchy implies a state, a state implies aggression, and aggression is the negation of a marketplace."
But there is currently a state, and there are curently markets. So idk what you are talkiing about.
I don't buy the idea that statelessness would look anything like anarcho-capitalism. The idea that PDAs would just arise and protect peoples property, as opposed to something like mass panic or widespread gang warfare.
Also anarcho-capitalism is not compatible with a lot of my normative beliefs.
Well what states are you talking about? It is not like statists just support "state." For example I do not support north Korea even though I am a "statist." I do not reject economic theory.
That's not what you indicated with the language you used.
... That's not an argument. If you accept that a marketplace is where voluntary interations take place, and that aggression is the negation of a marketplace, then you have to logically accept that a marketplace cannot exist under a state.
Repeating that does not make it an argument. Why wouldn't adequate defense be provided under anarchy when economic theory indicates the opposite. Where and what is your objection?
Well what states are you talking about? It is not like statists just support "state." For example I do not support north Korea even though I am a "statist."
What states should I consider and why do they represent statism?
I'm curious if you know what defines a market? Because in a world with no marketplace there is no exchange taking place, you are limited to growing your own food, getting your own water, making any goods you would want, and life would be a pretty miserable experience lacking almost any of the luxuries we enjoy today that require exchange and longer production methods. All a marketplace requires is two people who would benefit from trading their goods or services, and it makes no difference if you multiply that by the six billion people on the planet. This requires no government or state or overseer, people do this naturally because every mutually beneficial exchange results in a better situation for both parties or they would not take it up. Do you really think in a stateless world we would have no marketplace? The government collapses tomorrow and you need to buy some gasoline, you won't be able to find someone willing to make an exchange with you? Saying pre-existing marketplace is like saying pre-existing language, it's just a given that one will develop.
What we have now is a burdened, regulated, subsidized, fogged-up marketplace where there is so much government interference that entrepreneurs and consumers cannot accurately communicate and function together.
Why wouldn't private defense companies be formed in a stateless world? If there was a demand for it, entrepreneurs would have an incentive to supply private protection to consumers at varying prices and degrees of coverage. How would your life be different tomorrow if the government ceased to exist? Would you panic? Would you quit your job and form a gang?
Avatar by me | Contact me if you need artwork or graphic design done for an Austrian/Libertarian/Anarchist purpose.
Eric thinks people can only demand government, they aren't capable of demanding or supplying anything outside of government.
And no, I don't think he understands what a market is.
Thats fairly obvious.
"So you maintain that the child is not the father's private property, correct?"
I would simply maintain that all constructs of human thinking, "property' has scenarios in which it is really, really helpful, and others where it isn't. Children in general are one of the latter.
You really have to go back and see that where "property" works particularly well is as a contract (implicit or explicit) agreed to for mutual advantage: I won't mess with your house, farm animals, etc, if you don't mess with mine; I get to decide the disposition of my stuff, you get to decide the disposition of yours. That works great for land, and farm animals, and the product of one's labor; but it also works great when the contract signers are relatively equal in "power", that is, it is better for A to negotiate B's respect for A's property when B can actually damage or otherwise exert physical control over A's property. We do not define property between ourselves and, say, ants, because we simply don't need to: ants aren't going to really threaten our "property" (and wouldn't respect such a contract anyway).
It simply doesn't apply 100% in all situations. It obviously doesn't work so well here because the child himself does not have mental capacity to fully recognize and honor property (though I'm continually astounded now that I'm a parent at just how high-functioning children actually are; it is causing me some rethinks on some of these issues), and doesn't represent enough of a threat to our own "property claims" that we actually need to make any concessions to them.
I think this is a classic case of the fallacy of Plato's cave: where we've invented a term/concept (property) that is useful in many but not all cases, and elevated it to some platonic ideal and insisted that it appplies in all cases, so that when there is a contradiction between our terms and reality, we falsely conclude that it is reality that must be in error rather than our invention and application of these terms/concepts. "Property" is a useful abstraction, incredibly useful, but does not trump reality. In reality, a child cannot be considered "property", it's not a sufficiently nuanced concept (or put another way: the assumptions under which it is useful - described above - don't apply here, because of the weirdness with the assymetry of the child's power and ability to honor contracts).
"
I say to the man, "Sir, I will pay you 15 silver ounces for the custody of your kid, 5 silver ounces less for each additional time you hit the kid, or 0 silver ounces if the kid dies." Secretly, I will pay up to 30 silver ounces if a competing bidder (bring it on, relatives or anyone else) or the man counteroffers, else I will walk away. Regardless if the man accepts, rejects, or counteroffers, my gun stays holstered, so long as the man's gun, if any, stays holstered (or the man does not charge me if he is unarmed). Should I gain custody of the kid, I will put the kid to work. No state worship school for him. If the kid decides that completing his apprenticeship from me is not worth it (keep in mind that at 5 years old, I will have to teach him/her prerequisites, like reading, so apprenticing him can take many years), then I threaten to cease custody and let the kid (or somebody else) be responsible for taking care of himself. I will see if the kid changes his mind. Financial independence or bust. I am remorseless. (I wait for somebody on the Left to call me a adoptive parent child enslaver, who sits a child at my office sweatshop. I wait for somebody on the non-Left to berate me for not letting a fourth party intrude into a mutual exchange of the custody of the child between the man and me and pocket any of the silver ounces in a paperwork-generator case that could have all gone to the man.)"
I don't know if I agree with you or not, but it's certainly a different and thought-provoking response... well done.
Are you living in some fantasy world? We live in a state, and we currently have markets (which are quite developed and complex). I also do not accept your definition of a marketpace. Regardless, the reality is that markets can coincide with states. Whether or not you will accept reality is another question.
1. The empirical evidence says otherwise.
2. It isn't like PDAs are the only way to make money using soldiers. It is just as likely that gangs or mercinary armies would come to dominate. Especially since the financial sector and the stock marke propablyt would have colapsed.
Yes, there will always be at least ultra primative markets. But I was referring to markets that approach todays modern standards.
It hasn't gotten that bad.
Strawman.
I do. Stop talking down to everyone who disagrees with you.
Yes, only anarcho-capitalists understand markets.
Eric: Yes, there will always be at least ultra primative markets. But I was referring to markets that approach todays modern standards.
This is a statement from ignorance. There is no fundamental or practical difference in the mechanical functioning of a "primitive" market and a so called "advanced" or "modern" market. The only major differences are the following.
No where in that formula is government involved. If you call markets primitive then it follows that we live in a primitive market, one thats cumulated capital over a lengthy period of time. But the only difference between the market today and the market 1000 years ago is the type and degree of advancements in capital. Thats it. All other things being equal(barring out political problems of the past) markets have always functioned the same(and always will). Voluntary exchange from the concepts of methodological individualism and methodological subjectivism. In short there is no point in callign a market "primitive" or "advanced" in the context that you have. Markets are a process which function one way.
So when you say things like, "There will always be primitive markets", your essentially arguing against yourself. I wonder if you realize that. Markets either work or they don't, there is no in between or middle ground. Many conservatives and lefties hate this and don't understand it. They think you can have middle ground but when you understant the logical framework of markets you see how such a position is contradictory and nonesensical.
Eric:Yes, only anarcho-capitalists understand markets.
Some do.
This is a statement from ignorance. There is no fundamental or practical difference in the mechanical functioning of a "primitive" market and a so called "advanced" or "modern" market.
There are plenty of practical differences. The emergence of a medium of exchange or a stock market for example creates practical differences. There may be fundamental differences as well depending on how well a societies understanding of property rights develops. Regardless I don't see the ignoracne in my statement. Markets in some tribe in the Amazon are more primative than American markets.
If I call some markets primative then if follows that we live in a primative market? How? Also, there are plenty of differences between markets today and markets 1000 years ago. Markets develop along with the law, and commercial and property law has changed considerably. This led to the emergence of stock markets and corporations.
How am I arguing against myself? Also, just becasue you declare that "markets either work or they don't" doesn't make it true. There is no reason why someone can't hold the beleif that regulated markets lead to the most preferable outcome.
Eric:There is no reason why someone can't hold the beleif that regulated markets lead to the most preferable outcome.
For whom?
Eric: Eric thinks people can only demand government, they aren't capable of demanding or supplying anything outside of government. Strawman.
So you agree with me then that people are capable of providing for themselves outside of government. Doesn't that conflict with your theory that government is necessary?
Eric:And no, I don't think he understands what a market is. I do. Stop talking down to everyone who disagrees with you.
You mean like when you claim I have a plan for society, but won't back up that statement? Are you going to back it up or retract it now, or is it ok for you to mischaracterize my position, but not ok for me to mischaracterize yours?
The difference between us, is that I will back my claims or admit my error, you refuse to address the fundamental contradictions or baseless assertions in your post.
Eric:The emergence of a medium of exchange or a stock market
Uhh... did you or did you not read my post.
Specifically the part where I said
Filc: Existence of Direct or Indirect exchange IF indirect exchange exists then The degree to which capital accumulation has been allowed to occur
I agree, people are capable of doing it. In other words, it isn't impossible. No, it does not conflict with my beleifs regarding govt.
It is not that you just believe in abolishing the state. You want specific laws to be enforced (protecting property rights) and you want PDAs to arise and protect property rights. When in reality nobody could know what would happen. Statists on the other hand can have some degree of certainty regarding the outcome of some of their plans (as long as the proposal isn't too radical).
Uhh... did you or did you not read my post. Specifically the part where I said
Yes but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, as this doesn't make sense. Markets can exist without a medium of exchange. So the emergence of a medium of exchange will practically and fundamentally change a market. Unless you are arbitrarily using the emergence of a medium of exchange as a starting point.
Eric: So you agree with me then that people are capable of providing for themselves outside of government. Doesn't that conflict with your theory that government is necessary? I agree, people are capable of doing it. In other words, it isn't impossible. No, it does not conflict with my beleifs regarding govt.
If people are capable of doing it, why do we need government? Does government actually provide for people? Is it wealth creating?
Eric:It is not that you just believe in abolishing the state. You want specific laws to be enforced (protecting property rights) and you want PDAs to arise and protect property rights.
Can you source me saying any of this? If not, aren't you continuing to strawman me?
I will ask you for a third time. Can you substantiate this, or are you going to retract it?
Eric:Statists on the other hand can have some degree of certainty regarding the outcome of some of their plans (as long as the proposal isn't too radical).
Well, yes, we know what the outcome of statist plans are. Failure. Again, why do we need government? What does it provide?
liberty student: Eric:There is no reason why someone can't hold the beleif that regulated markets lead to the most preferable outcome. For whom?
Eric, don't miss this one.
Obviously we aren't in some vacum, debating about how society should look. Currently, governemnt enforces property rights. Whether or not property rights would be enforced to a greater or lesser extent without governemnt is debatable. I maintian that while property rights can be enforced without governemnt, it is not likely that they would be to the extent that they are now. Governemnt itself is not wealth creating, however it can pass laws which can facilitate wealth creation. Again, just because we are technically capable of doing something doesn't mean it is likely to happen. I don't maintian that it is impossible for there to be a well functioning stateless society.
If this is not what you beleive, then yes I will retract it. Although then I would be curious to know what your beleifs are.
So you think every plan initiated by a government was a failure?
I believe governemnt is necessary for a variety of reasons. For example, a guaranteed social saftey net so we don't just have to hope that private charity can sufice. Also, we currently live with government, and it isn't bad enough for me to want to risk anarchy when nobody knows what will happen. If I lived in North Korea, it would be another story.
Someone could hold the belief that regulated markets are the most economically efficient. Or that they allow for the quickest rise in living standards for the general population.
Although ultamitely what is preferable comes down to each persons opinion.