Although I'm by no means aligned with this guy's political ideology, he makes a good point. Is an anarcho-capitalist society really that "free" if virtually everything is private property?
Of course it would take time for another company to emerge. Any solution you could possibly propose will take time, and I could just as easily ask you what you expect people to do in the meanwhile. People are supposed to do whatever they are supposed to do. The answer to their problems won't fall out of of the sky.
You didn't mention boycotts. You're just positing a corporation that simply doesn't care whether consumers are satisfied or not, doesn't care about effects of its behavior on its reputation, and doesn't care about whether its holding prices high will attract outside entrants. You can do that if you want, but I dispute whether that's a likely scenario. Does the CEO have devil horns too?
Why do you also assume that all the roads are owned by one entity? Empirically, at least, in free markets there are usually several competing utility companies. Cartels are also quickly broken down when there is free entry.
Mutual aid doesn't necessarily mean that people go without your roads, though they might well and decide to take another route/mode of transportation. Your roads are competing with every other alternative on the market, after all. It may also mean that they provide each other with cash to make the purchase.
Again, there are plenty of possible solutions. I don't think its me that has to defend them all, since real life is much more complicated, so much as you that needs to justify why you are so certain that people are stupid and incapable of solving problems like this.
Buzz Killington:But surely when a certain system (private roads in this case) is proposed, you have to face the problems it creates!
Perhaps. But I think the "problems" in this case are not so much caused by private roads as just the general human desire to be a jackass. They will be present under any system you adopt. And there may be all sorts of ways of solving them. People have come this far.
Not too big on thinking about or putting much time intoyoutube video stuff, but for some reason I watched most of this so anyway.
It's tempting to be distracted by a lot of things that he is saying but I think there are two things that get him before we can even get out of the gate so
As far as Austrian Econ goes:
- Humans Act: Robots, etc are out of scope. By it's own being, an alien automatically shuts down the thought experiment if he is trying to shut down Austrian Econ (which he isn't)
- If he is talking about de facto political positions: Nothing logical can be said either way, so his "argument" isn't an argument at all. It is an aesthetic opinion and an appeal.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Buzz Killington:he makes a good point. Is an anarcho-capitalist society really that "free" if virtually everything is private property?
Oh I see. He'd be aligned with this socialist—that's not a pejorative...he's the found of Democratic Socialists of America—who talks about the "freedom to die" not being a good thing...
This is a pathetic argument that an intelligent alien will come to the planet and thus take over 100% of business and because of this total ownership now has the means to be come a tyrannical authoritarian private property owner. There are several problems with this. This is the same argument that people always come out with just minus the alien and replace it with a defense contractor or a police force. It is not very practical even in a hypothetical thought experiment about an alien to make the assertion that the alien would take 100% ownership of everything. So basically what he is saying is that the alien will visit the earth and if it was anarcho capitalism, would effectively start its own fascist government not by political means through propaganda, but by private sector voluntary contracts and agreements and advertising. Just another way of saying if you remove the government then an cap will lead to another government, thus we might as well keep the current government.
Buzz Killington: Although I'm by no means aligned with this guy's political ideology, he makes a good point. Is an anarcho-capitalist society really that "free" if virtually everything is private property?
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so I can answer unbiasedly. He brings up a point about people being intelligent enough to own everything, but I say why not? If someone is so intelligent and capable that he or she can, in essence, have a foothold in every industry, then it's still not slavery. Like the alien said, "You are free to not work for me," something to that effect. In essence, it isn't slavery.
On a smaller scale, it is the same. What happens when you own a pizza show, and right next door someone builds another pizza shop that taste better for less money? That's competition. You need to adapt. What's keeping you from making an even better recipe or lowering your prices, or offering more supply for the same demand? Nothing is stopping you.
Now if the alien decided to build a wall in the design of a fence on land that he bought fairly, thus keeping everyone in . . . that's why I'm not an anarcho capitalist, because it could happen. Nobody is there to enforce any law against purchasing private property, and if they wanted to avoid it, they would need private law enforcement, and who's to say the owner of the law enforcement agency isn't the property purchaser's grandkid.
Too many what ifs. I think a government is needed simply to preserve individuality, liberty and property, and such a thing would certainly intrude on liberty as it boxes people in. Liberty takes precedence over property. For instance, if a helpless heroine is locked in someone's car and the owner is holding her against her will and you see her trying to escape when she can't, absolutely destroy the property to help her get out. Liberty over property always (though I admit such a case where a distinction would be needed is rare).
2:28 - "Since he has a hard time finding an employer who can pay him one billion times more than the average wage labourer" - But why? He actually has the marginal productivity to economically justify a wage like that. So why would the employer hesitate? In any case, other employers would be extremely eager to bid the alien away, so his wage would eventually be driven up to marginal productivity levels, other things equal.
3:13 - "One likely scenario is that he would drive wages down and put many people out of work" - No, that's not how wages and employment are determined. Otherwise, no one would ever be paid $50,000/hr to work in finance and all such people would be out of a job since there are so many kids willing to flip burgers for the minimum wage. And in any event, the effect of so much additional production would be to rapidly drive down prices in the economy and increase everyone's real wages by a billionfold. With the savings, people would then spend their money on other goods or demand new ones, creating all sorts of new jobs.
3:45 - "This drives millions of business out of the market, employers end up working for alien" - Again, with all the savings from the cheap products, people would express their demand in different ways and new jobs and entrepreneurship opportunities would be created. The amount of human demand to be satisfied is not forever fixed somehow.
I suppose you could argue that this alien is so superior at everything that he predicts what consumers want before anyone else does and never suffers a loss, and so even though there is new demand he is the only one satisfying it, but in that case you're basically assuming that the alien is practically omniscient, i.e. he is God. Wouldn't that disrupt any political system that assumes a certain amount of human error, not just anarcho-capitalism?
4:24 - "The alien owns 100% of all the world's businesses, including the water, forests, mountains, and jungles" - Same false assumption as above. Also seems contradictory - people are somehow simultaneously buying up all of this guy's products and selling away everything they own. And why would all of the owners of these resources be willing to sell anyway? Maybe they are not all owned by business. Co-operative ventures, families, and non-profits who wanted to preserve the environment, for example, would probably own some of these resources as well and would refuse to sell.
4:28 - "Some people start getting suspicious that the alien has too much power" - But this contradicts the previous assumption. You just said the alien basically owns the whole world. That means everyone with property is willing to sell everything they've got to him, but now you've introduced some labourers who aren't willing to sell everything they've got because they distrust the alien.
As well, since this alien is so f-ing productive, he has probably created so many new products and technological innovations that people's needs for resources they find in nature and for basic sustenance is practically abolished. I doubt anyone would care if he appropriated all the jungle plants for himself since consumers' standard of living is so high.
I.e., because the alien is so good at satisfying consumer demands, the average person would be living like a king or queen. Instead of attacking him, people would probably be singing his praises.
5:57 - "Alien has the right to deny access to food, land, water, etc." - That makes no sense. This alien has produced so much that he has basically abolished scarcity. If that's the case, then by definition it is not possible for him to "exclude" anyone from the use of anything since everything exists in superabundance in relation to human demand. Thanks to this alien mankind is practically living in an earthly paradise.
But this whole scenario is ridiculous to begin with. This guy is assuming a fictitious entity that isn't bound by any human constraints at all and triumphantly claiming anarcho-capitalism wouldn't be able to deal with it as if it was relevant. Even if his claim was true, the fact is that no conceivable political system would not be disrupted by the existence of this "alien." He is basically god in extraterrestrial form. Practicable and realistic political ideologies, on the other hand, have to leave some margin for the existence of human incapacities and errors.
The most I could say for this guy, if his reasoning weren't so faulty, would be ,"Congratulations, you have just proven that libertarianism wouldn't work if there was an awesome, super-powerful alien. Now could you please explain how this is relevant to reality? Do you happen to personally be in contact with any super-powerful aliens?"
triknighted: Now if the alien decided to build a wall in the design of a fence on land that he bought fairly, thus keeping everyone in . . . that's why I'm not an anarcho capitalist, because it could happen. Nobody is there to enforce any law against purchasing private property, and if they wanted to avoid it, they would need private law enforcement, and who's to say the owner of the law enforcement agency isn't the property purchaser's grandkid.
You don't seem to have a very good understanding of the ancap position. What if the pizza owner's father is the sheriff, and he enforces that people will stay fenced in? Better yet, let's talk about actual scenarios. What about in the real world with all the corrupt politicians and police that exist? What about the non corrupt police that still beat people? This is why I am not a statist, because it happens.
triknighted: Too many what ifs. I think a government is needed simply to preserve individuality, liberty and property, and such a thing would certainly intrude on liberty as it boxes people in. Liberty takes precedence over property. For instance, if a helpless heroine is locked in someone's car and the owner is holding her against her will and you see her trying to escape when she can't, absolutely destroy the property to help her get out. Liberty over property always (though I admit such a case where a distinction would be needed is rare).
What does this scenario have to do with ancap? How is it even inconsistent with ancap? What if you see a "helpless heroine" being beaten and falsely imprisoned by the police? Do you absolutely save her from the police?
gotlucky: You don't seem to have a very good understanding of the ancap position. What if the pizza owner's father is the sheriff, and he enforces that people will stay fenced in? Better yet, let's talk about actual scenarios. What about in the real world with all the corrupt politicians and police that exist? What about the non corrupt police that still beat people? This is why I am not a statist, because it happens.
I see what you mean. However, this is where I differ with many AnCaps on here. While many AnCaps see themselves as fighting for deontological principles (e.g., theft is wrong no matter who robs whom), I see many of them hypocritically as utilitarians, thus consequentialists.
You aren't arguing for AnCap, you're arguing against statism. I'm simply bringing up a possibility because I primarily focus on deontological ethics.
gotlucky: What if you see a "helpless heroine" being beaten and falsely imprisoned by the police? Do you absolutely save her from the police?
What if you see a "helpless heroine" being beaten and falsely imprisoned by the police? Do you absolutely save her from the police?
Good point.
triknighted: You aren't arguing for AnCap, you're arguing against statism. I'm simply bringing up a possibility because I primarily focus on deontological ethics.
I'm not entirely sure of what you consider to be anarcho-capitalism. I am certainly anti-state. I am also for private law, which I believe is equal to anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism may not be as good a term as anti-state or private law. Obviously, just arguing against the state does not make someone an anarcho-capitalist, as one could very well be a communist (of course, there would never actually be a communist society without a state, or rather one that would last more than a generation). So I'm failing to see how I'm not arguing for anarcho-capitalism.
triknighted:Now if the alien decided to build a wall in the design of a fence on land that he bought fairly, thus keeping everyone in . . . that's why I'm not an anarcho capitalist, because it could happen.
Can I also weigh in here? I think what the people who complain about the "exclusion" and "selfishness" involved in private property rights - this is mine, I can keep you out, etc. - don't understand is that no matter what economic system you live under, some people are going to have to be excluded from the use of certain resources for some amount of time. That is because, so long as resources are scarce, it just isn't possible to satisfy everyone's demands for them simultaneously.
Therefore, some person or group of person's opinions about what to do with available resources is going to have to prevail over others at any given time. There are various things we can do to ease the pain of this - we can engage in production or charity, for instance - but we can't make the underlying fact of scarcity go away very easily.
I don't see how simply adding a state solves this problem either. States also have various rules about who gets to use state property and under what terms - as regards jailed criminals for example - in fact, for all practical purposes, state property is the private property of the state. Even if we lived under libertarian socialism, people who failed to abide by collectively established usage regulations regarding communal property would also need to be restricted or removed somehow.
tunk: triknighted:Now if the alien decided to build a wall in the design of a fence on land that he bought fairly, thus keeping everyone in . . . that's why I'm not an anarcho capitalist, because it could happen. Can I also weigh in here? I think what the people who complain about the "exclusion" and "selfishness" involved in private property rights - this is mine, I can keep you out, etc. - don't understand is that no matter what economic system you live under, some people are going to have to be excluded from the use of certain resources for some amount of time. That is because, so long as resources are scarce, it just isn't possible to satisfy everyone's demands for them simultaneously. Therefore, some person or group of person's opinions about what to do with available resources is going to have to prevail over others at any given time. There are various things we can do to ease the pain of this - we can engage in production or charity, for instance - but we can't make the underlying fact of scarcity go away very easily. I don't see how simply adding a state solves this problem either. States also have various rules about who gets to use state property and under what terms - as regards jailed criminals for example - in fact, for all practical purposes, state property is the private property of the state. Even if we lived under libertarian socialism, people who failed to abide by collectively established usage regulations regarding communal property would also need to be restricted or removed somehow.
What I mean is this: if I bought a property in the middle of what is no Kansas, let's say, and there's a lot of property around mine that I don't own so someone buys it and, say he's a sociopath, decides to build a 20 ft. wall I have no means of climbing over, and the wall surrounds my property, who comes to my aid if I can't defend myself? It's a legitimate question that I have no yet heard an answer to.
gotlucky: triknighted: You aren't arguing for AnCap, you're arguing against statism. I'm simply bringing up a possibility because I primarily focus on deontological ethics. I'm not entirely sure of what you consider to be anarcho-capitalism. I am certainly anti-state. I am also for private law, which I believe is equal to anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism may not be as good a term as anti-state or private law. Obviously, just arguing against the state does not make someone an anarcho-capitalist, as one could very well be a communist (of course, there would never actually be a communist society without a state, or rather one that would last more than a generation). So I'm failing to see how I'm not arguing for anarcho-capitalism.
I was more focused on that statement leading into the utilitarian topic. In other words, if you're truly concerned with principle instead of utilitarianism, then it doesn't matter where the wrong is, a wrong is a wrong. Now if it's your claim that the AnCap system is better than statism, that's fine . . . but that's what I meant when I said you're arguing against statism, not for AnCap.
I see a lot of problems with private law enforcement agencies or private judges, however you put it. It implies rules and law, yet there is nothing established, no jurisdictions, so what if nobody knows the law? Is there a law written down? Is there no law? If there's no law, why are there law enforcers, and why are there judges to begin with other than to enforce a non-existent law? If two different private law enforcement companies come to the same scene and have two different approaches, stances, interpretations or such differences, how are they resolved?
The AnCap model sounds nice, and I agree, businesses would function and on the whole, things would be really good for a while . . . until another nation decides to invade the territory/region/area (I know there's private ownership of weaponry, which is good, and private companies can develop weapons, which is even better . . . but I need evidence that it can compete with the technology and organization of an entire military or two that might attack us) and until people start having competing companies interpret "the law" differently.
Mind you, I'm not being argumentative for the sake of stirring some pot. These are legitimate critiques that I've reached as conclusions when people have asked me about my thoughts on here. I'm curious to see if I understand things correctly; feel free to correct me where I might be wrong.
John James:Oh I see. He'd be aligned with this socialist—that's not a pejorative...he's the found of Democratic Socialists of America—who talks about the "freedom to die" not being a good thing...
Well I think his point is that if everything is private property, the owners of that property will be able to impose whatever rules they wish on those using that property and thus the society isn't really free at all. I mean, it may not really be true with businesses such as factories, stores, ect. but what about roads? For example, what if I bought up all the roads in a given area? I could say to everyone: either you give me 50% of your income or sorry, you cannot use these roads to go to your job. Would that really be "freedom"?
triknighted: What I mean is this: if I bought a property in the middle of what is no Kansas, let's say, and there's a lot of property around mine that I don't own so someone buys it and, say he's a sociopath, decides to build a 20 ft. wall I have no means of climbing over, and the wall surrounds my property, who comes to my aid if I can't defend myself? It's a legitimate question that I have no yet heard an answer to.
Besides the fact that this sociopath would have to squander a ton of resources in order to box you in, thus making it a highly improbable scenario, you miss the point of people helping or not helping. If no one in the world is going to help you, then no one in the world is going to help you. Period. Whether it is a private group, government, or just a mob of townspeople, if no one is going to help you out of this absurd problem, then no one is going to help you.
triknighted:What I mean is this: if I bought a property in the middle of what is no Kansas, let's say, and there's a lot of property around mine that I don't own so someone buys it and, say he's a sociopath, decides to build a 20 ft. wall I have no means of climbing over, and the wall surrounds my property, who comes to my aid if I can't defend myself? It's a legitimate question that I have no yet heard an answer to.
That's exactly what I'm getting at, even though that would be compatible with Anarcho-Capitalism it doesn't sound like a very free world to me.