In the past, I found it difficult to get the anarchy-is-chaos idea out of my head. I felt that anarcho-capitalist preachers didn't sufficiently explain the underpinnings of rational human behavior. They place more of an emphasis on economic theory. Praxeology is complicated for the average person; I think it could be simplified for communication purposes. I haven't delved into the subject yet; this is just a reward/penalty explanation that I will build on.
Rational self-interest:
A rational and self-interested person seeks to minimize the risks posed by their environment and maximize the resources that can be acquired from it. In other words, he or she seeks to minimize penalties and maximize rewards.
Peaceful cooperation:
A group of rational and self-interested persons (regardless of size) will peacefully cooperate to achieve shared ends if the consequent reward outweighs the penalty.
Peaceful cooperation enables the division of labor, i.e. cooperative specialization in specific tasks and roles; and trade, i.e. mutually-beneficial exchanges of resources.
The division of labor and trade results in far greater productivity, and therefore higher living standards.
The penalty for peaceful cooperation is the deferred satisfaction of less urgent impulses, desires and appetites.
The long-term reward for peaceful cooperation outweighs the short-term penalty.
Using Aggression:
A rational and self-interested person will refrain from using aggression against others if the risk outweighs the reward.
The penalty associated with aggression is ostracism from groups of cooperative people, resulting in significantly less opportunities for improving living standards.
The reward for using aggression is the immediate satisfaction of impulses, desires and appetites.
The long-term penalty associated with aggression outweighs the short-term reward.
Therefore:
A rational and self-interested person will not only refrain from using aggression, but will also peacefully cooperate with other persons to achieve shared ends.
Rational self-interest is not a term I would ever use when trying to convince someone about the merits of anarchy. Let's face it, the way you define the term, it's really whatever you think a rational self-interested person would do, as if the head of a criminal mob is rationally self-interested. Drop the "rational" and just talk about self-interest, in that people pursue means to achieve their desired ends. It just so happens that the vast majority of people prefer peaceful cooperation to aggression in their everyday life.
I think that's really one of the best ways to go about it: most people desire cooperation.
I use "rational" here because I will differentiate "irrational self-interest" later. People who break the law today are acting out of irrational self-interest, because they do so even though the risk probably outweighs the reward in the long-term. Rational simply means acting to get more rewards than risks/penalties. The rigid use of terms like "rational" has precedent in economics (e.g. rational firm/consumer). If that's how people accept the law of demand and supply as being valid, then they can do the same here.
I use "rational" here because I will differentiate "irrational self-interest" later.
As I said, the only difference is what you say it is. In other words, it's a subjective difference.
People who break the law today are acting out of irrational self-interest, because they do so even though the risk probably outweighs the reward in the long-term.
In your opinion, criminals are acting irrationally. In your opinion, the risk probably outweighs the reward. Obviously, in the minds of criminals, it's just the opposite. The benefits outweighed the costs, so they commit crimes.
Rational simply means acting to get more rewards than risks/penalties.
Are you familiar with Mises' take on action and self-interest? That humans act, which by definition means that they choose what they consider to be their best choice to resolving felt uneasiness? Who are you to say that the risk of crime is greater than the reward for any given person? You can only make that decision for yourself.
The rigid use of terms like "rational" has precedent in economics (e.g. rational firm/consumer). If that's how people accept the law of demand and supply as being valid, then they can do the same here.
There is no such as a rational consumer by this definition. It is a construct for demonstrating principles. Furthermore, the Austrian school of economics does not use this definition of rational, because it does not actually apply to anyone. I do not accept it as valid, and most people on this forum won't either.
I really recommend that you do not try to convince people about the merits of anarchy by using the idea of "rational self-interested people".
Ditto. This is a quick way to get shut down. If you're arguing from anything like the rational-actor theory or homo economicus then you're on the wrong track. "Rational" in the Austrian sense is all about the use of reason in decision making, comparing preferences, expected results of trades, etc. It does no mean "optimal" or "well informed". Although better information (although not neccessarily MORE information) certainly helps, no human will ever be able to obtain and process all the relevent information in any transaction. Be careful with "self-interest" also. Humans are not inherently "selfish" in the traditional sense, but most actions are self-oriented. For example, if you decide to give money to a homeless dude on the street, you do it because YOU think it's a good idea, not neccessarily that it will make you personally better off. I like to frame it as humans are acting in a way to shape the WORLD to what they'd like it to be, not just their own lives. This encompases all sorts of altruistic and charitable behavior.
LogisticEarth:Ditto. This is a quick way to get shut down. If you're arguing from anything like the rational-actor theory or homo economicus then you're on the wrong track.
This is because most people equate "rational" with "logical", which (as you noted later) is not what Austrian-school economics does.
LogisticEarth:"Rational" in the Austrian sense is all about the use of reason in decision making, comparing preferences, expected results of trades, etc. It does no mean "optimal" or "well informed". Although better information (although not neccessarily MORE information) certainly helps, no human will ever be able to obtain and process all the relevent information in any transaction.
Indeed, a person can act entirely illogically yet still be "rational" in the Austrian-school economics sense. The Austrian-school economics notion of "rationality" is essentially the same thing as the neo-classical notion of "bounded rationality" (but was invented much earlier).
LogisticEarth:Be careful with "self-interest" also. Humans are not inherently "selfish" in the traditional sense, but most actions are self-oriented. For example, if you decide to give money to a homeless dude on the street, you do it because YOU think it's a good idea, not neccessarily that it will make you personally better off. I like to frame it as humans are acting in a way to shape the WORLD to what they'd like it to be, not just their own lives. This encompases all sorts of altruistic and charitable behavior.
What do you mean by "selfish in the traditional sense"? Otherwise, I'd say that all actions are necessarily self-oriented, regardless of whether they also benefit others.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Ancap66, I'd amend your statements as follows:
"A group of rational and self-interested persons (regardless of size) will peacefully cooperate to achieve shared ends if they each see the consequent reward(s) as outweighing the penalty(/ies)."
"A rational and self-interested person will refrain from using aggression against others if he sees the risk(s) as outweighing the reward(s)."
Finally, I'd eliminate this statement entirely, as whether a penalty outweighs a reward is entirely subjective: "The long-term penalty associated with aggression outweighs the short-term reward."
I mean it in the sense of someone specifically thinking "How will this make ME better". For example, Ebenezer Scrooge specifically deciding to horde gold while the Crachet family starves. Or a greedy person eating the majority of a cake intended to be shared by a bunch of people. This is what most people think of when they hear the term "selfish" and by extension, "self-interested". This is contrasted with the broader view that everyone's actions are done "for their own reasons", which makes every action, regardless of being traditionally altruistic or selfish, self-interested.
I'd say that, even when engaged in traditionally altruistic activities, people think about them in terms of how they will make them better off.
I was talking about an ultimate standard of rationality, e.g. "God's" objective point of view of what will rationally result in more rewards. Then I was going to say that because most people don't currently break the law, this shows that most people can defer gratification to obtain long-term rewards. Of course, this would conflict with the Austrian theory of subjective value, and I guess it's better to stick to that.
Ancap66, I'd amend your statements as follows...I agree, thank you.
Ancap66: I was talking about an ultimate standard of rationality, e.g. "God's" objective point of view of what will rationally result in more rewards. Then I was going to say that because most people don't currently break the law, this shows that most peoplecan defer gratification to obtain long-term rewards. Of course, this would conflict with the Austrian theory of subjective value, and I guess it's better to stick to that.
I was talking about an ultimate standard of rationality, e.g. "God's" objective point of view of what will rationally result in more rewards. Then I was going to say that because most people don't currently break the law, this shows that most peoplecan defer gratification to obtain long-term rewards. Of course, this would conflict with the Austrian theory of subjective value, and I guess it's better to stick to that.
I know what you were talking about, it's just that what you were talking about doesn't exist. There is no ultimate standard of rationality. It's all subjective. Most people do break the law all the time. See Stossel's Illegal Everything video and accompanying article. So, I assume you are talking about what is actual criminal behavior, and not just what the state has claimed to be criminal. But there are two problems with what you said, and I believe I have already stated them:
1) What is considered "rational" is purely subjective. If someone steals, obviously they thought they would be better off stealing than not stealing. Just because you disagree does not make what they did "irrational".
2) Most people choose voluntary, peaceful cooperation because most people want it. Most people do not want to live in a society where there is wanton aggression, and it is highly unlikely that humanity would have lasted this long if most people did want to live in such a society.
In short, the fact that people get along really has nothing to do with "rational" people. Using the idea of "rational" humans to convince other people of anarchy is foolishness. If you really want to talk about how most people get along, just say, "The vast majority of human interaction is voluntary and peaceful."
I think Robert Murphy does a wonderful job of communicating how anarchy can work.
Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?
I think a good way to get the chaos theory out of people's heads is to reason that individuals acting in their self-interest, essentially see other people as tools for improving their own living standards - Capitalism in One Lesson.
E.g. if you accept that a hermit in the wild would normally chop down trees to build himself a hut, then you should also accept that if he is confronted by another such person - a tool with which resources can be exchanged - neither will resort to cannibalism as long as trade and the division of labor offers better living standards. For me, the chaos theory melts away when I think of human beings interacting as purposefully as they would with inanimate tools when alone in the wild.