Has anyone read this essay? I myself find it very unsatisfying. Does anyone see the flaws and inadequacies of this discussion of externalities? I'm unsure why Hoppe put it in there. I'm still in the middle of reading it but here are a few things that I'm unsure about:
His rebuttal to the Malthusian, implying that the fact that the Malthusian had not considered suicide as an immediate solution to his fear of overpopulation, is completely lacking any depth.
Surely it is not contradictory to be worried about overpopulation and not immediately think of suicide? If I were truly worried I may attempt to start a business or campaign to persuade people not to have kids to much greater effect than simply ending my own life?
Also in the section on Externalities he makes the correct point that payment through taxation is not consistent with total protection and is logically absurd. However using the North American block against Russia as an example of private provision in the presence of 'spill over' is again completely lacking in rigour. The US could easily exclude protection of Canada and Mexico in its protection of its "own citizens"
I was hoping to give the book to a neo con friend of mine but the mere presence of this essay makes me think twice. I hope it gets better.
However using the North American block against Russia as an example of private provision in the presence of 'spill over' is again completely lacking in rigour.
If it's lacking in rigour, it isn't Block's fault as that is an example of an externality given by proponents of the theory (e.g. the US's defences deter attacks on neighboring countries.)
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
robert arbon:His rebuttal to the Malthusian, implying that the fact that the Malthusian had not considered suicide as an immediate solution to his fear of overpopulation, is completely lacking any depth.
Yeah, his attempt at proving a performative contradiction was pretty weak.
robert arbon:I hope it gets better.
Hulsmann's essay is wicked awesome.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
I`ve skimmed through it now and I can say I understand next to nothing of what he is saying. The ironic thing about it (for me) is that it is in a section of a book titled Private Security Production: Practical Applications. How is that practical application when he could as well be speaking Martian?We are Poland and Germany has 1,5 million troops on our border ready to invade tommorow. We tried guerrilla war 60 years ago, but it cost 3 million Poles and 3 million Polish Jews their lives so this time we`d like to just repell the invasion if possible. How do we defend ourselves through private security production? How many divisions can we call upon? Illustrate that sort of thing for me. That is a practical application I can understand!
robert arbon:Does anyone see the flaws and inadequacies of this discussion of externalities?
What are the specific flaws and inadequacies you find in Block's discussion of the topic?
His rebuttal to the Malthusian, implying that the fact that the Malthusian had not considered suicide as an immediate solution to his fear of overpopulation, is completely lacking any depth. Surely it is not contradictory to be worried about overpopulation and not immediately think of suicide? If I were truly worried I may attempt to start a business or campaign to persuade people not to have kids to much greater effect than simply ending my own life?
I think Block's argument here only works against those who think overpopulation is a current and immediate problem, for those who believe that it will someday be a problem, I can see your objection as sensible. But, if you think overpopulation is a problem right this instant, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go talking to people about how many children they should have, rather, you should lower the population immediately by one.
However using the North American block against Russia as an example of private provision in the presence of 'spill over' is again completely lacking in rigour. The US could easily exclude protection of Canada and Mexico in its protection of its "own citizens"
That's precisely Block's point. The externality argument rests on assuming that we cannot exclude from these goods. If we can exclude, then it falls apart. But, also, Block's point was that, assuming spill over effects exist and free riding is possible, it does not make sense that any country would create a military, as they would just be waiting around for someone else to so they could free ride, according to the logic of the externality argument. Again, the externality objection rests on the idea that no one will actually provide the "public good" because they will all just be waiting to free ride.
Marko:We are Poland and Germany has 1,5 million troops on our border ready to invade tommorow. We tried guerrilla war 60 years ago, but it cost 3 million Poles and 3 million Polish Jews their lives so this time we`d like to just repell the invasion if possible. How do we defend ourselves through private security production? How many divisions can we call upon? Illustrate that sort of thing for me. That is a practical application I can understand!
Maybe I'm totally incorrect in my history here, but I'm pretty certain that Poland had a state-provided military defense force during and before the Nazi invasion. Further, I'm pretty sure that market alternatives were not allowed. So, my question to you is, how does that historical incident show anything besides that state defense does not work?
Morty:That's precisely Block's point. The externality argument rests on assuming that we cannot exclude from these goods. If we can exclude, then it falls apart. But, also, Block's point was that, assuming spill over effects exist and free riding is possible, it does not make sense that any country would create a military, as they would just be waiting around for someone else to so they could free ride, according to the logic of the externality argument. Again, the externality objection rests on the idea that no one will actually provide the "public good" because they will all just be waiting to free ride.
It seems illogical because someone will provide it, because they find it is more beneficial. Also, he neglects things like negotiation, or a creative service.
Schools are labour camps.
Morty:Maybe I'm totally incorrect in my history here, but I'm pretty certain that Poland had a state-provided military defense force during and before the Nazi invasion. Further, I'm pretty sure that market alternatives were not allowed. So, my question to you is, how does that historical incident show anything besides that state defense does not work?
I don't think its a good idea to ask how do we create a army that mimics state armies. how to provide for the Assassination of political leaders, how to organize guerrilla militias, how to begin organized civil disobedience, all seem better options to me.
this is interesting: in praise of jackals - http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/forep/forep015.pdf
what of the inability for the invading state army to utilize centralized mechanism in a anarchic society? there is no existing structure that can be centrally controlled in Libertopia.
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
eliotn:It seems illogical because someone will provide it, because they find it is more beneficial. Also, he neglects things like negotiation, or a creative service.
Exactly right.
Marko:I don`t know what you are talking about, mate. I didn`t say that historical incident shows anything.
I suppose I took this: "We tried guerrilla war 60 years ago, but it cost 3 million Poles and 3 million Polish Jews their lives so this time we`d like to just repell the invasion if possible." to be an attack on several of the suggestions for private defense, which rest on the use of guerilla tactics. I was pointing out that just because a statist military failed at guerilla warfare does not mean that a private force created for that specific purpose would have the same result.
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf
a pdf by rob murphy i found. on military defence insurance
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
ThorsMitersaw:what of the inability for the invading state army to utilize centralized mechanism in a anarchic society? there is no existing structure that can be centrally controlled in Libertopia.
How are the Armenian secessionist guerrilas doing lately in Eastern Anatolia? Oh wait I forget, there are no Armenian guerrilas in Anatolia. The Ottoman Empire took care of that problem a hundred years by killing any Armenian old or young, male or female in territories under their control.
ThorsMitersaw:I don't think its a good idea to ask how do we create a army that mimics state armies. how to provide for the Assassination of political leaders, how to organize guerrilla militias, how to begin organized civil disobedience, all seem better options to me. this is interesting: in praise of jackals - http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/forep/forep015.pdf
Marko: ThorsMitersaw:what of the inability for the invading state army to utilize centralized mechanism in a anarchic society? there is no existing structure that can be centrally controlled in Libertopia. That will come very useful if they want us to surrender to them. What if they want us all dead instead however?I don't know. But the reasons states wage war is not simply to slaughter, it is to violently expropriate resources from others. How are the Armenian secessionist guerrilas doing lately in Eastern Anatolia? Oh wait I forget, there are no Armenian guerrilas in Anatolia. The Ottoman Empire took care of that problem a hundred years by killing any Armenian old or young, male or female in territories under their control.are you saying that anarchist defense doesnt work because people in a state goverended society had no otehr means of defense than their state that turned on them? rofl ThorsMitersaw:I don't think its a good idea to ask how do we create a army that mimics state armies. how to provide for the Assassination of political leaders, how to organize guerrilla militias, how to begin organized civil disobedience, all seem better options to me. this is interesting: in praise of jackals - http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/forep/forep015.pdfHow is an assasination of political leaders, a guerrilla militia or a civil disobedience protect the civilian population from mass reprisals of the ocuppier? Can they protect it from hundreds, thousands of potential My Lai style massacres? Of course not, because none of them can hold territory.All the unconventional defence ways seem to forget states only follow Geneva convention when they are fighting another state. They do not follow customs of war when fighting a people instead of a state and will always in the end resort to brutality against non-combatants. Readiness to wage guerrila war is a great deterant, but it is not neccesarily enough. Only a conventional army with tanks, artillery, jets and so on can stop the invasion right at the border.
That will come very useful if they want us to surrender to them. What if they want us all dead instead however?I don't know. But the reasons states wage war is not simply to slaughter, it is to violently expropriate resources from others.
How are the Armenian secessionist guerrilas doing lately in Eastern Anatolia? Oh wait I forget, there are no Armenian guerrilas in Anatolia. The Ottoman Empire took care of that problem a hundred years by killing any Armenian old or young, male or female in territories under their control.are you saying that anarchist defense doesnt work because people in a state goverended society had no otehr means of defense than their state that turned on them? rofl
the point of guerrilla warfare is not so much to win, if you can that is great, it is to not lose. It is to bleed the enemy dry or resources. if the enemy state is invading because they are motivated by economic reasons... the incentive to steal... then this raises the costs for them. If you make the costs of going to war with libertopia > the value of that which they can violently expropriate from you then they are either going to pull out or not invade at all. Assassination I might add is one cost that is EXTREMELY high. They WANT you to target their minions on the field. They are pawns. But if you kill the leaders in their centralized nightmare...If you force them to put THEIR lives on the line, then you have another story. This is essentially why minutemen 'unscrupulously' targeted officers in the American secession.
Morty:I suppose I took this: "We tried guerrilla war 60 years ago, but it cost 3 million Poles and 3 million Polish Jews their lives so this time we`d like to just repell the invasion if possible." to be an attack on several of the suggestions for private defense, which rest on the use of guerilla tactics. I was pointing out that just because a statist military failed at guerilla warfare does not mean that a private force created for that specific purpose would have the same result.
The definition of a guerrila force is a force that does not seek to control territory. It can set up "liberated territories" in areas where the ocuppier does not have a presence or only a weak one, but it must always retreat from that territory at the face of superior firepower of the invader should they move to recapture those "liberated territories" in order to preserve strength and ability to re-emerge elsewere thus retaining initiative. Military history of the WWII Yugoslav partisans in particular reads like an endless list of retreats from old liberated territories into new ones at the face of German offensives. Warsaw uprising was an example of an attempt of a guerrila force to actualy wage a conventional battle. In it the AK planned to take Warsaw and stand its ground repelling attempts of recapture instead of just fighting delaying actions. Considering they lacked heavy weapons the outcome was all too predictable. You don`t have to tell me guerrila war is effective. I know it is effective. But first and foremost it is very, very costly. 2 miles from my home is a mass grave and a monument to 80 killed "hostages", civilians rounded up in 1944 and gunned down in reprisal killings for a few occupying soldiers slain by partisan resistance. I would rather not be paying that sort of price if it can be avoided.
ThorsMitersaw:Assassination I might add is one cost that is EXTREMELY high. They WANT you to target their minions on the field. They are pawns. But if you kill the leaders in their centralized nightmare...If you force them to put THEIR lives on the line, then you have another story.
This does sound pretty good, but its primary value is stil deterant value (since killing say a president or a general is in reality fairly meaningless, as there will always be another candidate ready to step up). But no deterant is going to be 100% percent efficient. They might underestimate your ability to carry out the assasination, have unfounded faith in their secutiry measures or be ideologicaly driven to the point where they actualy are willing to take personal risk. So why not combine it with some sort of an army capable of conventional war that is compatible with liberty?
Marko:Saying a statist military failed at guerilla warfare is something of an oxymoron. Armia Krajowa was a resistance movement not a statist military. I assure you it was not tax funded. Yes probably AK would have been even more effective if Poland had prepeared for a guerrila struggle, but it ultimatley would not have mattered much.
I suppose I should have clarified, though you got what I was saying. I didn't mean, "The Polish Army failed at guerrilla warfare", ,rather, I meant, "The statist system of defense failed at guerrilla warfare". That is to say, it wasn't as if there were defense agencies already trained and prepared in that and they failed, but rather, out of desperation, the people who had been forced to rely on the State for defense used guerrilla warfare.
I think you can see that better trained, equipped, and funded guerrilla forces have had much more success. The Viet Cong, the mujaheddin, the American revolutionaries, and so on.
You don`t have to tell me guerrila war is effective. I know it is effective. But first and foremost it is very, very costly. 2 miles from my home is a mass grave and a monument to 80 killed "hostages", civilians rounded up in 1944 and gunned down in reprisal killings for a few occupying soldiers slain by partisan resistance. I would rather not be paying that sort of price if it can be avoided.
Fine and well. You would want to sign on with a defense company / insurance agency which decided that a more traditional form of defense was the way to go. Ultimately, it's about choice with regards to market anarchism. If you think one way of doing things is better than another, then that choice is available to you and you can put your money into that.
Marko: ThorsMitersaw:Assassination I might add is one cost that is EXTREMELY high. They WANT you to target their minions on the field. They are pawns. But if you kill the leaders in their centralized nightmare...If you force them to put THEIR lives on the line, then you have another story. This does sound pretty good, but its primary value is stil deterant value (since killing say a president or a general is in reality fairly meaningless, as there will always be another candidate ready to step up). But no deterant is going to be 100% percent efficient. They might underestimate your ability to carry out the assasination, have unfounded faith in their secutiry measures or be ideologicaly driven to the point where they actualy are willing to take personal risk. So why not combine it with some sort of an army capable of conventional war that is compatible with liberty?
I much agree. Protections are never 100%. But protection is far more beneficial for saving lives. Its sort of like wearing a condom in order to prevent yourself from haivng to face the effects and use the treatments. heh.
I largely think that a conventional war is so cost prohibitive that a libertaqrian society cannot wage one. Is this a bad thing? No. I think most definetly not. A standing army is the bane of liberty and I think it a happy consequence of freedom that men cannot amass such a thing in abscence of accepted organized theft. At least in no degree as exists now.
I think if thrown to the fires, a libertarian community would likely resort to the most cost/time efficient means of defense. Militias arent exactly cost prohibitive. Every man is responsible for his own equipment and training is set up in the same way. I think professional military consultants might provide a good mix of the not for proft and profit center, providing the professionalism that militias seem to lack. Private elites seem a much better option. Professional soldiers trained to strike in a strategic manner much like the Seals or Green Baret or some such elite group who uses not numbers or overwhelming force but speed, stealth, and superior fighting skill to create havoc and then get the hell out. Again a mixing of these groups of professionals with volunteer militia who train themselves in geurilla trianing might be a optimal combination of numbers and professionalism that maintains cost efficiency.
Again though I think it is worth pointing out that a program of civil disobedience is also effective. The french were never REALLY conquered. Their government gave up but to the credit of the French, the people never did. Many countries refused to cooperate with the Nazis, they fought from inside, hid there activities and made the occupation of a total pain in the ass. Non violent resistance combined with refusals to cooperate. Only non violent resistance brought down the British in India.
The state cannot MAKE you comply. You can never CONTROL a mans body (so far), you can only threaten him. Men must choose to act in accordance with the threatening criminals. I am not daming a man for doing so, but deciding 'I refuse' in mass leaves your overlord essentially powerless. I remember reading about a group of slaves from a specific tribe in Africa during Americas slave trade days. This tribe valued its freedom so much that they absolutely refused to cooperate with anyone who 'purchased' them. They could be beaten, starved, whiped, even killed, but they would never do as they were instructed. Demand for these people was cut to zero. Tyranny has no use for those who will not bow to threats. And this tribe was left alone from there on. They simply were no good as slaves because they simply refused to act as slaves.
I'm not too sure why it's given as an example. The US government/defense dept. does not bear the cost of assembling and maintaining the army and so the argument doesn't apply surely?
If I personally arranged a security company to keep my street safe either all by myself or by a group of us then that would be an example of private provision of a public good, precisely because the cost fell on the minority and the benefit on the whole street.
In 'national defense' the cost is borne by the tax payer and the benefit is enjoyed by the tax payers and their neighbours.
But the defense department do not personally bear the cost of the army, and it is also used for attack which is why it is assembled in the first place.
Thanks!
In 'national defense' the cost is beared by the tax payer and the benefit is enjoyed by the tax payers and their neighbours.
Right but the neighbours presumably do not pay. I consider it to be a non-issue, because it's your decision in the end whether to finance the good or not, and also because the cost will be reflected in more expensive exports to these neighbours, by individuals who do have to pay for the defence.
ThorsMitersaw:I largely think that a conventional war is so cost prohibitive that a libertaqrian society cannot wage one. Is this a bad thing? No. I think most definetly not. A standing army is the bane of liberty and I think it a happy consequence of freedom that men cannot amass such a thing in abscence of accepted organized theft. At least in no degree as exists now.
I largely think no matter how costly a conventional war a guerrila war is always going to be far costlier. The cost is going to be unseen human suffering. Which countries suffered the most killed in European theatre of WWII in terms of percentages of the population? The anwser is USSR, Poland and Yugoslavia. What did all these countries have in common? The anwser is an intense guerrila war. Or how about Vietnam? How many dead Vietnameese civilians for every American casulty inflicted?You do not need a giant standing army to fight a conventional war. Armies that fought the largest conventional wars were based on mobilisation and swelled in size many times from their peace time size. You can have a small core of proffesionals, of several thousand for very demanding specialised roles like pilots, complex anti-aircraft rocket artillery operators and mechanics. Plus the commanders that would in peace time handle the training. Other roles can be filled by voluntary reservists that mobilise only if there is an imminent danger of war. Thus unlike a militia you have not only reserve infantrymen, but also tank crews, artillerymen and so on. Infact in a long drawn war this could be a mayor advantage against an all-proffessional standing army, because for example you could have 10 times as many crews as you had tanks and artillery, therefore once the production shifted to military equipment you could probably field more armor and artillery pieces than the invader (esspecialy considering it takes more time to train a crew to a decent level than it does to hammer together a tank or a field gun - while on the other hand training a crew is much cheaper than building and maintaining a piece of heavy weaponary).
ThorsMitersaw:Again though I think it is worth pointing out that a program of civil disobedience is also effective. The french were never REALLY conquered. Their government gave up but to the credit of the French, the people never did. Many countries refused to cooperate with the Nazis, they fought from inside, hid there activities and made the occupation of a total pain in the ass. Non violent resistance combined with refusals to cooperate. Only non violent resistance brought down the British in India.
Civil disobedience has one mayor flaw and that is it assumes the ocuppier has some humanity. It is not a form of protection and defense at all. It is almost an appeal to the rationality and ultimatley humanity of the ocuppier. The British in India were relativley gentlemany by Imperialist standards, as were the Germans on the Western Front (towards non-Jews). But do you really think the Germans would flinch an eyelid if somebody on the Eastern Front started some fancy "civil disobediance"? They would have been promtly killed and that was that. It is not like they cared how many subhumans they killed.
Marko:I largely think no matter how costly a conventional war a guerrila war is always going to be far costlier. The cost is going to be unseen human suffering. Which countries suffered the most killed in European theatre of WWII in terms of percentages of the population? The anwser is USSR, Poland and Yugoslavia. What did all these countries have in common? The anwser is an intense guerrila war. Or how about Vietnam? How many dead Vietnameese civilians for every American casulty inflicted?
Thats true. It may be generally true in history. But that is not a forgone conclusion, a necessary outcome. We are indeed talking about a society that exists as a libertarian one already and so would have better organized, wealthier, more able citizens to do this sort of thing.
Marko:You do not need a giant standing army to fight a conventional war. You can have a small core of proffesionals... Other roles can be filled by voluntary reservists that mobilise only if there is an imminent danger of war.
I agree. This is sort of what I imagine happening with militia, consultants or professional tacticians and officers, and professional soldiers/crew/etc.
Marko:Civil disobedience has one mayor flaw and that is it assumes the ocuppier has some humanity. It is not a form of protection and defense at all. It is almost an appeal to the rationality and ultimatley humanity of the ocuppier. The British in India were relativley gentlemany by Imperialist standards, as were the Germans on the Western Front (towards non-Jews). But do you really think the Germans would flinch an eyelid if somebody on the Eastern Front started some fancy "civil disobediance"? They would have been promtly killed and that was that. It is not like they cared how many subhumans they killed.
Well no, I don't think assumes humanity, it assumes they are economically motivated goal driven humans. That they are human. The same reason the slaves I mentioned are made worthless through them being adamant about their freedom, is why this sort of thing has worked. I never meant though to put the idea forward that I think passive refusal to cooperate can alone be the best defense.
Why did Hitler not invade the Swiss?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bradley1.html