Anarchy Defined

are you aware the private security agents are plentifull?

Nir, there still exists a power (force) monopoly over the territory in which they operate -- one that grossly incentivizes their actions. Is there (and has there ever been) a territory without such a (power) force monopoly? 

I don't see the point of such hypotheticals, but so you don't feel ignored, i would imagine that Russia would have a bone to pick with the agents of the company that perpetrated the crime, and not so much with little girls and old men that live in the towns in which these 'so-called' agents live.

I don't understand from your question who in this world knows what about what happened? if everyone knows company 1 are villians this doesnt seem like a big win for them. 

If you want to discuss these sorts of things further, I will split the thread so that this one can keep on its track.

Where would company I get this money to bomb Russia? I know if I had a subscription to their service, I'd switch subscribers as soon as I found out they bombed Russia.

>>Nir, there still exists a power (force) monopoly over the territory in which they operate -- one that grossly incentivizes their actions. Is there (and has >>there ever been) a territory without such a (power) force monopoly? 

you tell me, according to you, that is the only place from which evidence could be admitted to prove the case one way or the other. this is your stance not mine. it is linked to your standard of proof, which i find over demanding. 

Nir, that's OK. Thanks for the debate. Z.

Isn't lebanon/syria an exmaple of two states coexisting in the same territory? To be sure there was tension between them but never the kind of all out war minarchists predict would happen between PDAs.

Syrian forces remained in Lebanon, exercising considerable influence. In 1991, a Treaty of Brotherhood, Cooperation, and Coordination, signed between Lebanon and Syria, legitimized the Syrian military presence in Lebanon. It stipulated that Lebanon would not be made a threat to Syria's security and that Syria was responsible for protecting Lebanon from external threats. In September that same year a Defense and Security Pact was enacted between the two countries.^[4]

If two states don't go to war when they occupy the same territory, even when one is more powerful than the other, PDAs are even less likely to go to war. Also, states, and therefore PDAs can apparently be brought down by civilian resistance alone. Yay modern non agricultural society!

After the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the death of Hafez Al-Assad in 2000, the Syrian military presence faced fierce criticism and resistance from the Lebanese population. The military presence ended on 26 April 2005 after the Cedar Revolution that took place as a reaction to the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on 14 February 2005.

Sieben:

Isn't lebanon/syria an exmaple of two states coexisting in the same territory?

Two power (force) "service providers" (armies) or one?

To be sure there was tension between them but never the kind of all out war minarchists predict would happen between PDAs.

Most wars end once (new, hopefully more stable) territorial power (force) monopolies get established. 

Also, states, and therefore PDAs can apparently be brought down by civilian resistance alone.

I notice that you're becoming more receptive to the PDA = state equivalence, as but two different manifestations of territorial power (force) monopolies.

Yay modern non agricultural society!

This is, of course, subjective but your optimism about "post-agricultural" societies may be a tad overblown. 

I've narrowed the debate down to my reluctance to treat power (force) as just another good/service to be provided on the free market due to its strong propensity to converge to territorial monopolies (unlike most other goods and services, for which there is ample evidence of non-monopolist, non-coercive free markets existing across mankind).

IMO, your most effective ways of ending/continuing this debate would be to: (1) disregard this lack of evidence as insignificant (as Nir did), or (2) provide alleviating evidence to the contrary.

z1235:

Two power (force) "service providers" (armies) or one?

Lebanon had a civil war. One of the sides called in syria for help. After the civil war, syria stuck around, and two governments occupied the same territory. The new lebanese government and the syrian government.

z1235:

Most wars end once (new, hopefully more stable) territorial power (force) monopolies get established.

Syria and the lebanese government never fought a war against eachother.

z1235:

I notice that you're becoming more receptive to the PDA = state equivalence, as but two different manifestations of territorial power (force) monopolies

No. I'm saying that since PDAs are easier to bring down than states, anything that brings down a state can also bring down a PDA. In this case, civilian action.

z1235:

This is, of course, subjective but your optimism about "post-agricultural" societies may be a tad overblown.

Agricultural societies are particularly vulnerable to states, because you can't change jobs easily or communicate with everyone else. In modern times, the bloodthirsty conquest of states is checked by civilian opinion, which spreads quickly due to technology.

z1235:

) provide alleviating evidence to the contrary.

You do not understand the significance of this example? Your prediction is that PDAs will converge into territorial monopolies. They will either attack eachother or make a deal in order to consolidate their monopoly. Anarchists say this won't happen because the costs are too high. Indeed the lebanon/syria example is one where two public DA's did not consolidate their monopoly, even though they can externalize their costs much more easily than PDAs.

In short, if states don't go to war in a situation, why would PDAs go to war?

Also, I would love to hear a rebuttal to my "non enforceable contract" thesis, which is what nir is roughly hitting on. As well as the guns/water comparison, since both can be used aggressively to gain leverage against consumers.

Moreover, there are strong ideaological reasons why PDAs cannot establish monopolies. No state can last any length of time if its citizens do not believe in its legitimacy. Most people don't believe in the legitimacy of conquering corporations. A PDA would never be able to act like a warlord. Its overhead would be too high.

Anarchy is the absence of a monopoly in governance. In essence, a free market.

The problem with identifying anarchy with anarcho-capitalism is that it makes it seem like one naively believes that simply eliminating government will necessarily bring about a libertarian society.

The problem with identifying anarchy with anarcho-capitalism is that it makes it seem like one naively believes that simply eliminating government will necessarily bring about a libertarian society.

Anything I can think of that would stand a decent chance of eliminating government involves having alternative institutions already in place in some form to a large degree. The state will probably maintain its legitimacy in the minds of the people until people can observe all the things they now believe can only be done by the state being taken care of voluntarily. So if people see how private schooling works in one country, private courts and law enforcement (perhaps on a seastead), private money (perhaps on the internet), etc... When people can see that all the components of a free society "work" in isolation and so will probably work in conjuntion, the idea that the state is necessary will start to loose its common sense appeal. Only then would I expect to see the dismantling of the state.

Worrying about what would happen if anarchism became common sense tomorrow, seems to me, to be a silly thing to do. I don't think worrying about what would happen if we had access to a button that would immediately disolve government is worth our effort.

"The problem with identifying anarchy with anarcho-capitalism is that it makes it seem like one naively believes that simply eliminating government will necessarily bring about a libertarian society."

Q For T

Travlyr:

This is why I argue for property rights... including the right to life.

liberty student:

This is not as clear cut as you may believe it to be.

That's why I'm here to learn.  I find that few really know or can explain theft in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Travlyr:

And it is why anarchy fails (no one to enforce the rules).

liberty student:

If you have someone enforcing rules without consent, you do not have property rights.

Right.

liberty student:

If you have someone enforcing rules with consent, that is anarchy.

Anarchy is defined in the online etymology dictionary as "rulerless."  No one to enforce rules.

Travlyr:

The state should provide laws protecting my property, and the state should provide rulers (a sheriff) to capture those who violate the rights of others.

liberty student:

The state can do all of those things, but to expect me to pay for the same state you want, is not freedom.

Right.  This is the tough question. I wish I had an answer besides taxation.

While I would agree to a state protecting my property rights, I do not agree to any other function of the state. 

liberty student:

Maybe I want a different setup, different laws, different forms of protection.

Right, yet protection of property rights is fundamental to liberty.  Do you have a different setup, law or protection that is fundamental to liberty?

liberty student:

It is my "right" to choose how I will defend myself and my property or to not defend it at all.

Agreed.  However, if a maniac does violate someone's property (let's say rape), shouldn't society help her find the perpetrater and get restitution?

Travlyr:

That's why I'm here to learn.  I find that few really know or can explain theft in an anarcho-capitalist society.

I'm happy you are here to learn.  There are a lot of people all trying to learn, so it is a good environment for that.

Travlyr:

Anarchy is defined in the online etymology dictionary as "rulerless."  No one to enforce rules.

Being ruled and enforcing rules are not the same thing.  I think this may be the part of the discussion we're hung up on.

Travlyr:

Travlyr:

The state should provide laws protecting my property, and the state should provide rulers (a sheriff) to capture those who violate the rights of others.

liberty student:

The state can do all of those things, but to expect me to pay for the same state you want, is not freedom.

Right.  This is the tough question. I wish I had an answer besides taxation.

While I would agree to a state protecting my property rights, I do not agree to any other function of the state.

I will (and many other Austrians as well) argue for the market.  We can all choose the sort of laws and defense and enforcement, at costs we approve of, voluntarily.    Taxation is really just theft, and as you indicated, it's not a very good solution.

Wrt to the state protecting your property rights, that is because it is YOUR consent to give to the state to do so, and it is YOUR consent for it to not do other things.  This is a fundamentally sound libertarian or voluntarist position.  The state can only do with your property, what you consent to it doing, and you reserve the right to withhold consent, if a state wants to be legitimate in your eyes.

Travlyr:

Right, yet protection of property rights is fundamental to liberty.  Do you have a different setup, law or protection that is fundamental to liberty?

Well, I start with this premise.  I can't defend property rights by violating property rights.  So right off the bat, the state is disqualified.  So now, I have property rights, but no way to defend them.  My next step is to either defend them myself, or to contract someone (voluntarily, thus a consentual use of my property) to do it for me.  This can be a bodyguard.  It can be a security agency.  It can be a lawyer.

It is someone of my choosing, acting in a manner I consent to, as far as I can consent, which is only with my property and property rights, not yours.  This is the market solution.

Travlyr:

Agreed.  However, if a maniac does violate someone's property (let's say rape), shouldn't society help her find the perpetrater and get restitution?

If she asks for help, absolutely.  A civil society cannot last if it allows violations of life and liberty.

But remember, a monopoly state (the only provider of law and protection in a geographical area) violates life and liberty, before it can push back against the violations of others.

Anarchy is absence of government.  Government is a territorial monopolist producer of law.  Anarchy is therefore a free market in law.

The laws produced under free market conditions are, of course, going to be whatever laws consumers demand.  There are good reasons to believe these will be largely libertarian.  Capitalism is the economic system that results from having libertarian laws.

A libertarian anarchist (or anarcho-capitalist) is therefore in favor of two quite seperate things: "I want laws to be produced by the market" and "I want to live under libertarian laws".

A libertarian anarchist (or anarcho-capitalist) is therefore in favor of two quite seperate things: "I want laws to be produced by the market" and "I want to live under libertarian laws".

The second one is not necessarily the anarcho-capitalist position. Only thick anarcho-capitalists would support the second (some thin would not). Being an anarcho-capitalist doesn't even contradict localized socialist economic systems or sharia legal arrangements (as long as they are entered into voluntarily).

The second one is not necessarily the anarcho-capitalist position. Only thick anarcho-capitalists would support the second (some thin would not)

So called "thick libertarians" conflate political philosophy with legal philosophy.

Being an anarcho-capitalist doesn't even contradict localized socialist economic systems or sharia legal arrangements (as long as they are entered into voluntarily).

Change "voluntarist" for "anarcho-capitalist" and I agree. An-cap to me means someone who prefers anarchy and capitalism, although they could be simultaneously a voluntarist like me. Why even call the ideology an-cap if it is really an-cap-statism-morachism-socialism-syndicalism-etc.?

Sieben:

After the civil war, syria stuck around, and two governments occupied the same territory. The new lebanese government and the syrian government. ...You do not understand the significance of this example?

From wiki:

"The Syrian military remained in Lebanon; after a successful campaign against the Lebanese Forces militia who had controlled Beirut port, Aoun, now with massive popular support in his East Beirut enclave, declared a "War of Liberation" against the Syrian forces. Fighting began on 14 March 1989. Casualties among civilians on both sides from indiscriminate artillery bombardments across the front line were numerous. Aoun initially received a greater degree of international support than el-Hoss, but this ended abruptly with the American build-up for war with Iraq over Kuwait. Aoun had received considerable support from the Iraqi government, anxious to weaken the rival Baathist regime in Damascus;^{[citation needed]} in October 1990 Syrian forces took the presidential palace at Baabda by storm. Aoun took refuge in the French embassy and was later exiled from Lebanon to France. Circumstances surrounding his exile are controversial; his apprehension and exile are variously attributed to Syrian forces, Israeli Defense Forces, Shiite militias, and the Lebanese Forces militia of Samir Geagea."

If you want I can provide you with some other war-ridden ethnically mixed tinderboxes to add to your evidence database.

Sieben:

Also, I would love to hear a rebuttal to my "non enforceable contract" thesis, which is what nir is roughly hitting on.

Can you please remind me of it quickly? I honestly forgot what it was about. 

Sieben:

As well as the guns/water comparison, since both can be used aggressively to gain leverage against consumers.

And yet, there are free (non-monopolist) markets in water, and none in power (force). Pizza can also be used aggressively to gain leverage against hungry customers.

z1235:

in October 1990 Syrian forces took the presidential palace at Baabda by storm

Yes. We know syria helped faction A win against faction B in lebanon. Afterwards, faction A and syria coexisted in tension, but did not consolidate power. This is the whole point: Two providers of security/force can coexist in the same territory without successfully consolidating power.

z1235:

Can you please remind me of it quickly? I honestly forgot what it was about.

Consumers cant enforce contracts with a monopoly security provider. If one day, god imbued the head of some PDA with zapping powers, all his contracts would become unenforceable (bad). There would arise a huge demand for enforceable contracts, causing the divinely augmented PDA to shrink and others to grow until zeus jr. could be contained. 

z1235:

And yet, there are free (non-monopolist) markets in water, and none in power (force). Pizza can also be used aggressively to gain leverage against hungry customers.

So, lacking a principled rebuttal, you admit that the distinction is bunk in theory, while in practice it does not appear to hold up. Well you need theory. So here we go.

If states provide for security, no one else is going to double their efforts. No private company is going to build black hawks to try to fight off al qeada. They're already doing it. However the state is not presently engaged in trying to monopolize food markets. Actually it has been in communist countries, so i suppose its a good compare and contrast between state and private provision of inelastically high demand goods.

You constantly reject examples given by nir and ERO of significant private security in statist contexts, on the grounds that the state will smack them around if they get out of line. But couldn't you argue that if the STATE got out of line public dissent would smack the state around? So really what rules are the IDEAS of society, not particular institutions. Most people think that self defense and community security are okay, while attacking competitors isn't.

Also, privateers are incredibly badass and totally pwned the navies of britain/usa/canada. 700 years of rock and roll resitution and non aggression. Customary law yus and et cetera.

[EDIT: I also challenge the idea that the state really could smack around our current PDAs. The state can't beat rag tag drug gangs. What makes you think they can beat professional security? Okay maybe the dude who takes the midnight shift at woolworth's isn't duke nukem... but still. What makes you think the public would let the state attack defensive PDAs? There's a very strong, albeit warped, general consensus that you don't attack innocent people]

E. R. Olovetto:

Why even call the ideology an-cap if it is really an-cap-statism-morachism-socialism-syndicalism-etc.?

Because capitalism was used in lieu of market.  Voluntary socialism can only emerge under a capitalistic (market based) order, not from a socialistic one.

I prefer the terms market anarchism and voluntarism myself.  They are much less ambiguous.

Sieben:

We know syria helped faction A win against faction B in lebanon. Afterwards, faction A and syria coexisted in tension, but did not consolidate power. This is the whole point: Two providers of security/force can coexist in the same territory without successfully consolidating power.

You didn't have to dig that hard to find an example for an occupation and collaborators with which the occupiers are more than happy to "coexist". I'm sorry but it's ridiculous to persist in using this as evidence for your position. 

Sieben:

Consumers cant enforce contracts with a monopoly security provider.

I agree. The fact that power (force) markets are different from all other goods/services is reflected in the fact that the contracts for power (force) "services" are also different from contracts for all other goods services. This is actually my position, and I don't see how it helps yours.

Sieben:

There would arise a huge demand for enforceable contracts, causing the divinely augmented PDA to shrink and others to grow until zeus jr. could be contained.

Where is that huge demand today? I assume you are aware that most people on this planet live under un-enforcable security "contracts" with power (force) monopolies. 

Sieben:

So, lacking a principled rebuttal, you admit that the distinction is bunk in theory, while in practice it does not appear to hold up.

The distinction stands in theory: The more power (force) a provider has, the higher the "price" the customer pays. It's quite a peculiar "good/service" that way -- a higher "supply" of something resulting in a higher "price" to the consumer. 

The distinction also stands in practice as there is no evidence of a free (non-monopolist) market in power (force) while there are plenty of examples of free markets in all other goods/services through history and across mankind. 

z1235:

You didn't have to dig that hard to find an example of occupation and collaborators with which the occupiers are more than happy to "coexist". I'm sorry but it's ridiculous to persist in using this as evidence for your position.

Its the only one I could thing of right off hand... and really doesn't it disprove your collusive territorial monopoly thesis?

z1235:

This is actually my position, and I don't see how it helps yours.

Because people don't agree to unenforceable contracts. You admit that in the first place, there *can* be such a thing as a free market in security right? Where contracts are enforceable and you can change security providers etc etc... The minarchist prediction is that this free market would form a monopoly, which would render previously enforceable contracts unenforceable. Since people don't agree to unenforceable contracts, this can't happen.

z1235:

Where is that huge demand today? I assume you are aware that most people on this planet live under un-enforcable security "contracts" with power (force) monopolies.

[edit: didn't see this last night] Well there's the fact that people still have to pay private security to protect them, since the cops don't perform their hobbesian function. As far as a demand to be protected from the state, I think it exists but practically everyone thinks they're benefitting from the state's existence. Poor people think they are, rich people think they are... but there are plenty of black markets for things the state illegalizes/taxes too heavily (drugs, cigarettes, media). You don't have to buy tanks to protect yourself from the intrusion of the state.

z1235:

The distinction also stands in practice as there is no evidence of a free (non-monopolist) market in power (force) while there are plenty of examples of free markets in all other goods/services through history and across mankind.

Your framework is all wrong on this issue. See the last part of my previous post.