Ancap-ism depends on the idea that agencies will not exploit clients. However, each profit-maximizing agency has to find clients to exploit to maximize its profits so it can compete. Agencies that "play nice" and try to attack bad agencies to enforce their security contracts lose out to one ones that are exploiting clients. There's strong incentives to defect from contracts and natural law collective agreements. If there wasn't, and fear of action by other agencies was sufficient to convince every single agency to behave according to collective agreements, then things like price-fixing and monopoly trusts would be possible.
Nuclear weapons guys? It amazes me sometimes how far away from practicality these discussions can stray. You all realizethat something like 8 or 10 countries out of almost 300 have them. I am willing to wager that if an anarchist society ever gets together, it will not be capable of producing or procuring a nuclear weapon for at least 50 years in the best case scenario.
The problem with the ancap thing, put in another way, is that it rests on a knife edge between two positions. Either: 1) Private defense firms act in their individual profit maximizing interest and pillage their clients, as they would be required to in an efficient, competitive market, or 2) These market processes are constrained by the threat of force from other firms and horizontal agreements and collusion (including "natural law"), which are forms of anticompetitive, monopolistic market structure Both lead to bad outcomes.
If that were true, warlordism would be unprofitable. The legal system is basically irrelevant. Anarcho-capitalism assumes that pillaging would be punished by other agencies who served their clients.
The important question regarding whether anarcho-capitalism would work is how profitable pillaging is versus how profitable protecting clients is. In practice, pillaging seems to be a much more common behavior for private armies.
It depends on whether the private army can expect to be able to maintain their position long term or not. Long term, it is more profitable to shear the sheep, rather than kill them for the meat (or harvest eggs rather than butcher the chickens). But that only works if ownership is respected. Applied to humans, this means that the State, which can claim long term ownership, is more likely to preserve its "herd" than a private agency.
That's weird. I wasn't intending to reason myself toward what will doubtless be regarded as a trolling of sorts, given the venue. :-\
What is long term? How are humans the sheeps of private armies? Why can private armies not claim long term business relations? (I substituted the former phrase for "ownership", because it is ridiculous to insinuate that because someone hires the services of another, they are owned by that provider.)
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Extortion is a completely different situation and does not produce wealth. The victims will be less productive, the criminal gangs gain less monetarily, but this gain could hardly be considered profit, as it is not derived from a firm's productive process and catallactic actions.
That's an assumption. If extortion dones't produce wealth, why isn't it less common in areas without a functioning central government?
It's probably as much an assumption that it is less prevalent with a government than without. And then if you're just asking why it isn't less prevalent than it is with no comparison, that's a somewhat arbitrary question like, "why doesn't Wendy's put more fries in their orders since customer satisfaction would rise and that is preferable?"
The fact that it exists anywhere (with or without a government) is no indicator of its ability to PRODUCE wealth. It occurs because their are groups of people that wish to, instead of working to produce their own wealth, extort wealth from producers and live at the expense of others. This includes governments and pirate-like criminals.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
It's probably as much an assumption that it is less prevalent with a government than without.
You believe that there is as much extortion going on in politically stable countries as there are in unstable ones? Feudal Europe, Somalia, the Congo, Colombia, and other places without a functioning central government over large parts of the country?
Point taken. There are many reasons why people extort and pillage and under ancap-ism, there would have to be enough agencies following natural law to defeat the agencies which chose to extort and pillage. If there are not enough, then the outcome is not pleasant. If there are enough agences following natural law, then that implies the possibility of a collusion being enforced (natural law is a collusive horizontal agreement), and there isn't any particular reason why this one type of horizontal agreement may be enforced and not others.
Yes. No one in the US, for example, escapes the extortion of the government. Sales tax, income tax, property tax, capital gains tax, gift tax, inheritance tax, estate tax, death tax... The government steals from all members of society. Without a government, some people are not being stolen from, because they are allowed to resist and hide from the thieves. Government is more efficient at extortion than a band of pirates.
The point is, a centralized governing body that attempts to put all people under it (as subjects) will always be the largest and most efficient example of the living-at-others-expense mentality. I cannot guarantee that that mentality won't exist in some under an anarcho-capitalist society with libertarian values, I can only say it is far less likely to be successful, sustained, maintained, or enforced on any significant portion of the population, and even then, the victims or would-be victims are allowed to defend themselves against the thieves, but you are not allowed to defend yourself against the taxman.
It may not be sustained by any one party. The difference is that different defense agencies have the ability to engage in warfare with each other, or engage in a horizontal agreements to restrict competition, which can greatly increase their destructive and exploitative ability.
impala76:You believe that there is as much extortion going on in politically stable countries as there are in unstable ones? Feudal Europe, Somalia, the Congo, Colombia, and other places without a functioning central government over large parts of the country?
Yes, it's called the government. If you write the largest, most organized group of murderers and thieves out of one side then of course everywhere else looks worse. It would only be fair to include the government's actions when making such a comparison. The US government is the richest and most successful extortion racket in the history of mankind.
impala76:Point taken. There are many reasons why people extort and pllage and under ancap-ism, there would have to be enough agencies following natural law to defeat the agencies which chose to extort and pillage. If there are not enough, then the outcome is not pleasant.
Absolutely, but this is the same as with a State. Again, you have to compare apples to apples. When people say "ancap loses to warlords, etc." what they inevitably end up comparing is a relatively peaceful society under government to a not-so-peaceful society that happens to not have a government. Ancaps aren't saying that a society of brutal murderers or jihadists or people with generally no respect for property rights are suddenly going to shape up under anarchy. Ancaps are just saying that whatever that society might be like without the State, it will be worse with the State.
Robert Murphy has a good Mises Daily on exactly this subject: http://mises.org/daily/1855
Ban-Evader:Ancap-ism depends on the idea that agencies will not exploit clients. However, each profit-maximizing agency has to find clients to exploit to maximize its profits so it can compete. Agencies that "play nice" and try to attack bad agencies to enforce their security contracts lose out to one ones that are exploiting clients. There's strong incentives to defect from contracts and natural law collective agreements. If there wasn't, and fear of action by other agencies was sufficient to convince every single agency to behave according to collective agreements, then things like price-fixing and monopoly trusts would be possible.
We're already living in an anarchy, aren't we? There's no single government for the entire human race. It's just that the anarchy we live in isn't one that systematically respects the self-ownership and non-aggression principles.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
>We're already living in an anarchy, aren't we? There's no single government for the entire human race. It's just that the anarchy we live in isn't one that systematically respects the self-ownership and non-aggression principles.
Sure, I didn't disagree with that (other than the "anarchy" semantics).
Yes, it's called the government.
If you think those societies were less exploitative than the liberal welfare state, would you want to live in them?
Ancaps are just saying that whatever that society might be like without the State, it will be worse with the State.
Assuming we had proof that that was true, the other problem is that the natural law idea itself relies on enforcement of a horizontal agreement.
impala76:It may not be sustained by any one party. The difference is that different defense agencies have the ability to engage in warfare with each other, or engage in a horizontal agreements to restrict competition, which can greatly increase their destructive and exploitative ability.
You're still comparing Society A that solves it's issues somewhat peacefully to Society B that immediately resorts to killing each other. Of course Society B sucks.Rival government factions can't engage in warfare with each other? It's called a civil war, and it happens quite often. Governmental parties are an agreement to restrict competition.
I could sum up your argument as: "ancap could potentially give way to all of this bad stuff, which if it happens results in behaviors identical to those of government. Therefore, we need government to prevent it". It's that last part that makes the argument nonsensical.
I wouldn't call mass pillaging and warfare identical to a modern government. The difference with government is that it's usually limited by a system of balance of powers. Libertopia involves competing defense agencies with power centralized each of their executives.
This system only "works" on a knife-edge between monopolization and profit-maximizing abuse of power.
Ban-Evader:The difference with government is that it's usually limited by a system of balance of powers.
What exactly do you mean by "balance of powers" and how exactly do you think it exists and persists?
Assuming we had proof that that was true
We do. See The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights On the Frontier by Terry L. Anderson, or at least check out this Mises Daily on the same topic: http://mises.org/daily/4108
Stop being ridiculous mustang.
The separation of government into different branches, where none have the ability to apply violent force beyond the limits set in the constitution. No one branch can attain complete executive power over the government because none have complete authority to command the military. Under a defense agency, of course, command of the military is centralized under the agencies' executive.
>Wild West
It really wasn't as pleasant as that article makes it sound.
Yes, one branch of the federal government has reason to stop another branch of the federal government from saying or asserting that the federal government should have less or limited powers. If that theory were true, government would have never gotten larger, or more powerful, or more I trusive into trivial matters of people's everyday personal lives. That is not the case.
(the real balance of powers was not the legislative, executive, and judicial. It was the People, the States, and the federal government. Of course, you don't want anything to do with that. It's as if you would say it would be a good idea to let players from the Boston Red Sox be umpires for a game between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. You're positions are contradictory and make no sense.
I'm not talking about the United States. In other countries (let's take Canada), the government has pretty much followed the national constitution. Whether or not you think that constitution was written well is a separate argument.
the real balance of powers was not the legislative, executive, and judicial. It was the People, the States, and the federal government.
Sorry. I meant separation of powers.
The difference between the two systems is that no branch of government has no power to do anything with its resources without agreement from all the other branches and the constitution, while under ancap-ism, any defense agency executive has absolute power to do anything with its resources.
Ban-Evader:The separation of government into different branches, where none have the ability to apply violent force beyond the limits set in the constitution.
"Ability" to me means "the physical means to do something". That can't be what you mean here though, as the different branches of government certainly do have the physical means to apply violent force beyond the limits set in the constitution. So what do you actually mean here?
Ban-Evader:No one branch can attain complete executive power over the government because none have complete authority to command the military.
Are you sure about that? In the US Constitution, for example, the President is the commander-in-chief of the military. That sounds to me like he does have complete authority to command the military. While it's Congress that has the authority to declare war, I think we both see how strong of a limitation that's actually been over the past 60+ years. So it seems that, in at least one case of constitutional government (the US), the executive branch is in the process of attaining complete executive power over the government.
Ban-Evader:Under a defense agency, of course, command of the military is centralized under the agencies' executive.
Why do you think a defense agency would necessarily be the same as a statist military? Furthermore, just because command may be centralized under the agency's executive doesn't mean there's no separation of authority whatsoever. For example, do you think defense agencies would always and necessarily be the judges of their own conflicts?
Ban-Evader:The difference between the two systems is that no branch of government has no power to do anything with its resources without agreement from all the other branches and the constitution, while under ancap-ism, any defense agency executive has absolute power to do anything with its resources.
Let's be clear here. You're not talking about raw physical means - you're talking about legitimacy. Now where has any anarcho-capitalist asserted that it would be legitimate for any defense-agency executive to do anything with "his" agency's resources?
That can't be what you mean here though, as the different branches of government certainly do have the physical means to apply violent force beyond the limits set in the constitution.
Generally, they don't. But okay, let's assume the constitution doesn't mean anything in practice and look at separation of powers.
The president cannot, say, tax someone without the explicit or implicit consent of the other branches of government. The government as a whole could levy the tax, but any one branch is unable to unilaterally do so.
That sounds to me like he does have complete authority to command the military.
That's not complete control. He can't stage a coup on DC whenever he feels like it.
For example, do you think defense agencies would always and necessarily be the judges of their own conflicts?
If this judging occurs after the fact, it's quite irrelvant. The point is that, as these defense agencies are usually proposed, the executives (or shareholders, or whoever has ownership) have control over their own company and can order it to do what they desire.
Let's be clear here. You're not talking about raw physical means - you're talking about legitimacy.
I am talking about the executive's authority over his company. He has the ability to order his defense agency to do whatever he believes maximizes profit, like any corporate executive.
Human nature is always the same regardless of its framework. The concern for tyranny under anarcho-capitalism is as equally valid as under statism.
Ban-Evader:Generally, they don't.
How not?
Ban-Evader:The president cannot, say, tax someone without the explicit or implicit consent of the other branches of government. The government as a whole could levy the tax, but any one branch is unable to unilaterally do so.
Ban-Evader:That's not complete control. He can't stage a coup on DC whenever he feels like it.
Ban-Evader:If this judging occurs after the fact, it's quite irrelvant.
How so? But doesn't judging (in a legal sense, mind you) always occur after the fact?
Ban-Evader:The point is that, as these defense agencies are usually proposed, the executives (or shareholders, or whoever has ownership) have control over their own company and can order it to do what they desire.
That doesn't mean that the orders will necessarily be followed, nor does it mean the orders themselves will be considered legitimate by others.
Ban-Evader:I am talking about the executive's authority over his company. He has the ability to order his defense agency to do whatever he believes maximizes profit, like any corporate executive.
So let me get this straight. You believe that people who work for the government are individuals capable of independent thought, but people who work for corporations aren't. Gotcha. All that's left is for you to explain the reason(s) behind this alleged dichotomy.
Impala is also making an error. He's presupposing all branches of government are following the law and everyone is doing their job in making sure each is strictly acting inside their jursidiction . Clearly, the executive branch has grown disproportionately in power since the "Civil War," and especially inthe last several decades.
The president can't tax someone because a tax change must be approved by the supreme court and passed by the legislature. A coup or whatnot could only occur if the supreme court somehow consented to it.
Judging is irrelevant after the fact if the power to enforce the decision rests in the defense agencies themselves, and several of these agencies too busy pillaging to enforce the decision.
No, they're both "capable of independent thought".
Anyway, this is a diversion. "Natural law" is a form of horizontal agreement that limits consumer choices to agencies that only obey natural law. Do you agree?
Ban-Evader:The president can't tax someone because a tax change must be approved by the supreme court and passed by the legislature.
Really? Must it? Can you prove it?
Ban-Evader:A coup or whatnot could only occur if the supreme court somehow consented to it.
Really? Are you sure?
Ban-Evader:Judging is irrelevant after the fact if the power to enforce the decision rests in the defense agencies themselves, and several of these agencies too busy pillaging to enforce the decision.
Several =/= all. So I fail to see how it's still necessarily irrelevant after the fact. I'd say the authority - not the power per se, as power does not beget its own authority IMO - to enforce the decision rests with the person(s) that the judge(s) found in favor of.
Ban-Evader:No, they're both "capable of independent thought".
Thanks for the clarification there.
Ban-Evader:Anyway, this is a diversion. "Natural law" is a form of horizontal agreement that limits consumer choices to agencies that only obey natural law. Do you agree?
Not necessarily. Besides, I haven't talked about "natural law", have I?
Obama wants to lower payroll taxes and Congress won't let him. That's an example of how the executive doesn't have the power to tax.
It is possible, but unlikely because the other two branches could detect the deployment and the supreme court has at least as much power as the president to contravene the order.
If your point is that "centralization of power isn't absolutely impossible under demoracy", though, I'll concede to you this point. My point is that separation of powers makes this outcome less likely.
Ancap-ism does necessarily involve restricting legal competition to agencies which follow natural law. The agencies must restrict competition in this way.
Ban-Evader:Obama wants to lower payroll taxes and Congress won't let him. That's an example of how the executive doesn't have the power to tax.
Sure it does. Pretty much everyone has some power to take things from others without their consent. Obama's just "playing the game" in this instance.
Ban-Evader:It is possible, but unlikely because the other two branches could detect the deployment and the supreme court has at least as much power as the president to contravene the order.
In other words, it's not impossible for a coup to occur without the Supreme Court approving of it. Furthermore, who has to listen to the Supreme Court about anything and why?
Ban-Evader:Ancap-ism does necessarily involve restricting legal competition to agencies which follow natural law. The agencies must restrict competition in this way.
Please back this up with... well, with something.
Nobody. Abuse of power happens in any system, but separation of powers is better at preventing it than concentration of military power in an executive (or separate executives).
If competition is not restricted to natural law-practicing agencies, how can natural law be upheld?
Natural law (in a free society) isn't like the law of the State. No one uses force in an attempt to make one abide by it. One only answers to the market for his actions (and God). How is it, mustang, that you still pretend you don't understand the NAP and liberty's rejection of a man's authority over another man?
Ban-Evader:Nobody. Abuse of power happens in any system, but separation of powers is better at preventing it than concentration of military power in an executive (or separate executives).
Thanks for admitting that no one has to listen to the Supreme Court (for example) about anything. Now let me ask you this: if there are multiple defense agencies, and hence multiple defense-agency executives, wouldn't that be a form of separation of powers? Furthermore, if there are separate organizations that judge disputes, wouldn't there be more of a separation of powers under anarcho-capitalism than under constitutional governments?
Ban-Evader:If competition is not restricted to natural law-practicing agencies, how can natural law be upheld?
What is this "natural law" you speak of?
Thanks for admitting that no one has to listen to the Supreme Court (for example) about anything. Now let me ask you this: if there are multiple defense agencies, and hence multiple defense-agency executives, wouldn't that be a form of separation of powers?
Not a very good one. Somalia essentially has multiple defense agencies which give lip service to tribal law.
Furthermore, if there are separate organizations that judge disputes, wouldn't there be more of a separation of powers under anarcho-capitalism than under constitutional governments?
Only if the judges have partial ownership of the defense companies. Otherwise, they have no ability to contravene the defense agencies' actions before they happen.
The non-aggression principle.