But these aggressive agencies will come into conflict with NAP ones. If the NAP ones win like you assume, then they're depriving consumers of the ability to chose aggressive agencies.
We need bumperstickers "Anarchopolis, where our hitmen are amateurs!"
No, the agencies dont prevent people from entering the market. They protect consumers from aggression.
They may not completely prevent them from entering the market, but neither does any monopoly.
If the conflict is terminal for the assassin, then he is no longer able to compete in the marketplace due to the anticompetitive behavior of the NAP agency.
This doesn't just apply to the assassination market. Aggressive defense agencies will conflict with non-aggression principle defense agencies, and the winner will have eliminated a competing business model. Although they will be able to start up and form, aggressive agencies will not develop in significant numbers in this setting to provide a viable choice of their product to consumers.
The problem is that, if this one type of anticompetitive behavior is expected, what prevents other types of anticompetitive behavior? Why won't the strongest agencies, and alliances of agencies, prey upon, pillage, and exploit the weak ones?
Because we just proved that they wouldnt be allowed.
Where? Not allowed by who? Why won't the agency doing the "allowing" start pillaging as well?
impala76: Government does not stop warlords now, rather community action to provide police force and justice stops them. So basically, you're expecting the community to not fund competing legal systems and instead agree on how to run law and order? Well, I hope you're right.
Government does not stop warlords now, rather community action to provide police force and justice stops them.
So basically, you're expecting the community to not fund competing legal systems and instead agree on how to run law and order?
Well, I hope you're right.
Not at all, I only want to make it possible for people who DO agree to join together and exclude those whom do not agree. Those 'not agree'ers' can then find those THEY agree with and form a community with them. The pre-requisite for this is the abandoning of democracy and the idea that anyone should be able to force laws on you.
In such a society, if you don't agree with what others are doing, you start your own thing. And if you do agree with someone else's ideals, you join their society, if they will have you.
Rather that creating political battles, such a society gives an outlet to disagreement in the form of political action that does not create conflicts--the mechanism being the free entry of jurisdictions. Anyone can start a jurisdiction. Anyone can leave any jurisdiction at will. Jurisdictions allow the person who sets them up to set them up with certain rules, and any who do not agree to those rules can either not join or not come into that territory. Since the jurisdiction is made up of private property, exclusion is not an issue and there is no tragedy of the commons. There is simply no commons.
So in case of conflict, whatever group considers itself the legitimate originators of the community expel the conflicting groups?
What? Where the people are. Not allowed by the people, who are there. Because if they extort their customers then soon they wont have any customers.
They won't need them if they're extorting the cash. We've talked about that.
impala76: And a meteor made of solid gold might hit the earth and destroy our way of life by inflating the supply of gold and blocking the sun with dust. It seems like you might be grasping at extremely abstract straws here. Whats your point? Well, the various ancap proposals generally involve something to prevent the emergence of aggressive legal systems. Suppressing these agencies is a restriction on consumer choice and competitive behavior.
And a meteor made of solid gold might hit the earth and destroy our way of life by inflating the supply of gold and blocking the sun with dust. It seems like you might be grasping at extremely abstract straws here. Whats your point?
Well, the various ancap proposals generally involve something to prevent the emergence of aggressive legal systems. Suppressing these agencies is a restriction on consumer choice and competitive behavior.
That's like saying restricting rape is a limit on human freedom.
No, it's a limit on human aggression. Aggression is immoral and instituting aggression in the form of an aggressive legal system is even more evil.
You didn't win that one, mustang19. Literally none of your arguments held any water.
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.
impala76: But these aggressive agencies will come into conflict with NAP ones. If the NAP ones win like you assume, then they're depriving consumers of the ability to chose aggressive agencies.
I don't have any problem saying you can't choose an aggressive agency. Just like I have no problem saying you cannot rape.
In my proposed mincap society, the highest rule of law would be the assumption of voluntaryism, this is the highest law of the land, and no jurisdiction would be allowed to create any laws or any legal order that violated voluntaryism.
You could still setup a socialist regime, but it would have to be voluntarily submitted to by its voluntarily-joined members. And they would have to be able to leave at will.
You never explained why warlordism has historically been a viable business model if, as you claim, it isn't financially sustainable.
I dont follow. How do they not need customers if they steal a little bit? Theft isnt productive, it expends resources. Soon people run out of stuff to steal, if they dont get tired of your shit and off you. Catallacty actually produces wealth, extortion and pillage consume it.
Not if they continue creating wealth as the theft progresses. Otherwise, how could states exist?
Yes I did.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/5693/480843.aspx#480843
a survey of the historical record would reveal that your terminology is beyond imprecise, and productivity is negatively correlated with the amount of extortion present in a society. Troll harder.
You're assuming that states with warlord problems tend or tended to ban guns- Columbia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and so forth. In all cases, this was not true.
Productivity correlations don't answer the question. You have to explain why warlordism can persist if it supposedly can't fund itself.
impala76: Not at all, I only want to make it possible for people who DO agree to join together and exclude those whom do not agree. Those 'not agree'ers' can then find those THEY agree with and form a community with them. The pre-requisite for this is the abandoning of democracy and the idea that anyone should be able to force laws on you. So in case of conflict, whatever group considers itself the legitimate originators of the community expel the conflicting groups?
Two ways that could be handled--and this would be up to the originator of the community.
Either you go with a consensus model, where if some private law gets proposed that says that everyone in the community must adopt the law or those whom do adopt it will exclude those whom do not, then what happens is dependent on how many accept that law. It cannot be forced on people, but if the majority accept it then the minority must leave. And if this eventuality was written into the charter from the beginning then the leavers cannot complain. They will simply clone the jurisdiction's law-base, minus the one new law they couldn't agree on, and setup shop next door with hardly an interruption of their lives.
If the law fails to be approved by a majrity of citizens, then the minority, meaning those who did accept the law, must either leave or abandon the law themselves in order to stay.
The second way you could setup a charter is that all changes that aren't agreed on unanimously won't be adopted. The net result is that if anyone person decides they need a change and can't convince everyone they need it too, then they must start a new jurisdiction to obtain that change.
And since the barrier to entry of jurisdictions is low, that's perfectly possible and hardly an imposition on them.
Starting a jurisdiction, fyi, means writing a charter and registering it online as the bounds of your property and whomever agrees with it, if any.
impala76: I dont follow. How do they not need customers if they steal a little bit? Theft isnt productive, it expends resources. Soon people run out of stuff to steal, if they dont get tired of your shit and off you. Catallacty actually produces wealth, extortion and pillage consume it. Not if they continue creating wealth as the theft progresses. Otherwise, how could states exist?
Not if they continue creating wealth as the theft progresses.
1. That still does not make plunder a form of wealth production. It's a form of parasitism.
2. You ignore the premise of starting with a free society whose individuals understand, accept, and believe deeply in their liberty (as would be necessary to form a voluntary society) and thus, their absolute rejection of parasitism and coercion.
You. Have. No. Valid. Arguments.
That sounds a lot like... majority rule!
Well, the free market is a democracy of sorts. (Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about your earlier replies.)
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I see your premises, Phi, and raise you the fact they only hold in a specific society that may or may not exist in the real world. But okay, if those premises are correct, then the rest of your argument holds.
Aren't warlords just smaller states?
With the consent of the governed, obviously. And, among those governments, the societies where the government more effectively represents the populace, those people who choose to live under the government are more productive. Its a mostly voluntary arrangement. Now contrast this with governments that have to impose their will on the population, and see how much less they produce, and how much more they expend simply to (fail at) maintaining status quo.
I'm not saying warlordism is a good idea, just that it's the likely outcome of profit-maximizing independent legal agencies who prey upon the weak. You have to prove that the productivity from the free market is enough to convince Barack Obama that he would make more money if he dissolved the government.
Yes, and that's likely what happens when you privatize the state services and military.
impala76: Either you go with a consensus model, where if some private law gets proposed that says that everyone in the community must adopt the law or those whom do adopt it will exclude those whom do not, then what happens is dependent on how many accept that law. It cannot be forced on people, but if the majority accept it then the minority must leave. And if this eventuality was written into the charter from the beginning then the leavers cannot complain. They will simply clone the jurisdiction's law-base, minus the one new law they couldn't agree on, and setup shop next door with hardly an interruption of their lives. That sounds a lot like... majority rule!
And yet it's not. There remains in my scenario a way to escape any law and simply not accept them. In majority rule laws can be forced on you explicitly. In my scenario laws cannot be forced on you. That's a pretty big difference. And since the way that consensus would be dealt with is explicitly written into the charter up-front, and anyone joining a community explicitly accepts the charter before joining, they will have accepted the need to leave if everyone but them agrees to a rule for living there that requires everyone to agree to it or leave.
Voluntaryism is thereby retained. Big difference.
Ban-Evader:I'm not saying warlordism is a good idea, just that it's the likely outcome of profit-maximizing independent legal agencies who prey upon the weak.
Just how weak do you think "the weak" would necessarily be?
Ban-Evader:You have to prove that the productivity from the free market is enough to convince Barack Obama that he would make more money if he dissolved the government.
... Why is that, exactly?
You can leave the US and renounce your citizenship at any time. Does this make a society voluntarist?
I think there are more than two ways of handling that little problem. For example, two competing legal standards could exist, and if the parties to a dispute couldnt agree on an arbitrator, this would create demand for more skilled people to enter the arbitration field. Multiple cultures could share the same area, as they do now, and settle disputes among themselves in one court and with outsiders in other courts. I think polycentric law would respect freedom of association and create a strong network of individuals.
Because if you don't, then he'll keep on being a tyrant.
Ban-Evader:Yes, and that's likely what happens when you privatize the state services and military.
What do you think is the actual vs. intended purpose of a military?
And in these cases, and other like them, as was stated before, the people were never educated in the philosophy of liberty nor the laws of economics. This, too, is a prerequisite for a voluntary society.
I mean, mercantilism is no where near as stict as it once was (although it is still rampant in the modern world in many forms), and all because the understand ing the laws of economics was unknown and undiscovered until only a few centuries ago.
You still fail.