Haven't heard of any progressives, conservatives, classical liberals, or even minarchists who want to take defense and law enforcement out of the hands of government. Why is it if you're talking about the supermarket the majority of folks agree that it's best left up to the free market, but not the police? How do folks who don't believe that security should be privatized and left to market forces justify putting the issue of security into a separate little box; basically saying that " Everything else is better when left to market forces, but not security." How do minarchists justify their position, and how do supposedly pro-free market small government conservatives defend their position?
CrazyCoot:Why is it if you're talking about the supermarket the majority of folks agree that it's best left up to the free market, but not the police
Because they think that government guarantees certain social behavior by its edicts. We are not murdering people, not because it is immoral or unpragmatic, but because the government tells us not to and will punish us if we try. Also they think that the market won't provide order which is strange because you would think food and water which they want privatized in some manner would be more important then police.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I don't understand how statists can point to the corrupt nature of man and then think that putting a monopoly on the use of violence in a given territory to a group of men will ameliorate the situation. That's probably the most common argument I hear, other than 'what about the children', from folks; that an ancap society would only work if men were angels.
CrazyCoot: Haven't heard of any progressives, conservatives, classical liberals, or even minarchists who want to take defense and law enforcement out of the hands of government. Why is it if you're talking about the supermarket the majority of folks agree that it's best left up to the free market, but not the police? How do folks who don't believe that security should be privatized and left to market forces justify putting the issue of security into a separate little box; basically saying that " Everything else is better when left to market forces, but not security." How do minarchists justify their position, and how do supposedly pro-free market small government conservatives defend their position?
Cause there will be no market forces. Just forces.
Monopolising it helps... how?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
What do you mean by the statement that there will only be forces and not market forces?
CrazyCoot:Haven't heard of any progressives, conservatives, classical liberals, or even minarchists who want to take defense and law enforcement out of the hands of government.
Because that would make them anarchists.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I'm sure they have heard of privatizing security (or roads and many other government owned areas), but they probably have never actually read into it. They believe that it's too extreme, and it would be easier to just put it in the hands of the State and let them sort it out.
Andrew Cain: CrazyCoot:Why is it if you're talking about the supermarket the majority of folks agree that it's best left up to the free market, but not the police Because they think that government guarantees certain social behavior by its edicts. We are not murdering people, not because it is immoral or unpragmatic, but because the government tells us not to and will punish us if we try. Also they think that the market won't provide order which is strange because you would think food and water which they want privatized in some manner would be more important then police.
Yep - I love to reference people to this article by Lew Rockwell when this subject comes up. It's a failure to really grasp the limits of government power. It's based on the myth that "organization" or some other mystical social force arising from minds thinking alike can accomplish things that are impossible, such as, transcending scarcity. The government can at best keep us as safe as a private law and security market could because there is no problem that government solves which the private market cannot.
Clayton -
CrazyCoot: What do you mean by the statement that there will only be forces and not market forces?
There will be no extended market, because there will be no widespread protection for property. Just limited market exchanges.
It's not that I think the market couldn't provide defense per se, I just don't see it as necessary. I'm pretty happy with the military and the police and the courts being done the way they're done. I don't understand why I should want to change things.
In other words, I don't see it as impossible like some statists.
"I don't understand how statists can point to the corrupt nature of man and then think that putting a monopoly on the use of violence in a given territory to a group of men will ameliorate the situation."
I believe in the corrupt nature of man, but not just of men participating in markets, but also men working for government. I don't really see any way to ameliorate the flaws in human nature, I just see different ways to structure a system and I think all of them will have problems because they will have men participating in them. So I don't think anarcho-capitalism would necessarily be a worse or better system, just a different one with different outcomes and different problems.
I think it depends largely on whether the person's opposition to government is moral or utilitarian. If one is morally opposed to coercion on principle, I think it is very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this with the minarchist political view. If the military, police, and courts are being supported through taxation, and coercively excluding competitors in these areas, then they are being held by a violent monopoly, and are therefore morally unjust because they violate the non-aggression principle. Objectivists attempt to side-step this problem by applying the conditions a) that the government is supported voluntarily (by corporate and individual 'donations' and the like), and b) that the so-called 'objectification of law in accordance with objectivist principles is a moral necessity. They accuse market anarchists of wrongfully conflating the defense of a free-market with the market itself, rather than as an external framework within which markets function. I think this view is flawed, however, because contradictions follow from it. If all men are equal, having naturally and equal right to defense, why is it that in the objectivist conception only a few select men have the right to the types of defense provided by the government? By this reasoning, it is morally incorrect for one man or group of men to engage in just defense, while for another (the government) it is completely moral and necessary.
If one has a utilitarian view, on the other hand, no moral justifications are necessary. Anything one thinks the government will do better, the government "should" do regardless of the morality of the means.
scineram: CrazyCoot: What do you mean by the statement that there will only be forces and not market forces? There will be no extended market, because there will be no widespread protection for property. Just limited market exchanges.
Why wouldn't widespread protection of property arise? I mean, why wouldn't actors in the market see the demand for widespread protection of property and respond to it?
Re: human nature. I agree, human beings are corrupt creatures. And no one is expecting an ancap society to be utopia; watch Hoppe's A Private Law Society lecture. He addresses the shortcomings of any system that involves humans. It just seems that a system not based on monopoly and coercion makes more sense. Both from a moral and practical standpoint. Even if one ignores the lack of moral consistency present in the arguments of everyone from minarchists to totalitarians the practical argument remains. If you believe in a limited state please tell me why you think that the shortcomings of monopolies, rising prices and decreasing quality, don't apply to the state and any other reasons why the state would do a better job than a private firm.
bloomj31:I'm pretty happy with the military and the police and the courts being done the way they're done.
Except that they uphold everything that you are against.
CrazyCoot:Why wouldn't widespread protection of property arise? I mean, why wouldn't actors in the market see the demand for widespread protection of property and respond to it?
I'm still waiting for widespread protection of property.
I guess his argument is that protection would be limited to hamlets or something like that. Correct me if I'm wrong OP
CrazyCoot:I guess his argument is that protection would be limited to hamlets or something like that.
Whether that would be true or not is not at all important. What is important is that a monopoly will be (is) worse than the alternative... any alternative, really.
Caley McKibbin: Except that they uphold everything that you are against.
True but that's the price imo.
"If you believe in a limited state please tell me why you think that the shortcomings of monopolies, rising prices and decreasing quality, don't apply to the state and any other reasons why the state would do a better job than a private firm."
I don't really think about it this way. I think all those shortcomings apply to the state but that they're costs that I'm willing to pay for to have one adjudicator, one source of military power.
If so, just go live in an area where one PDA protects a given territory (or better yet, outright owns it?) No need to hoist a state on everyone else and at least in this scenario if the PDA did prove burdensome you could leave.
The idea of a service is intellectual; in contrast to a gun which is physical. Since the intellectual can be dominated by physical means people wont consider anyone who uses physical means as a service, but rather a necessity. Its because we as a people have been conquered by the violent. The supermarket is easy to see as a service because Vons doesn't have an army. Notice that people will view the grocers union as a necessity, not all, but these same people will. Because a union uses violence to justify itself.
The problem isn't that law and security are provided by the government, but that they aren't provided by the government. Governments are capable of providing law and security; order and protection of property are possible if they so desire it but they do not desire it. Why? Because there is no authority, there is nothing but mindless democratic machinery, red tape and wheels within wheels.
The whole damn system of the 'Republic' is a failure, and it's a miracle it has lasted this long. The answer is not, however, 'no government' but real government; actual authority, actual capacity, actual governance, actual responsibility.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Liberté: .... The answer is not, however, 'no government' but real government; actual authority, actual capacity, actual governance, actual responsibility.
.... The answer is not, however, 'no government' but real government; actual authority, actual capacity, actual governance, actual responsibility.
Is this a voluntary government or non-voluntarily government?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg: Liberté: .... The answer is not, however, 'no government' but real government; actual authority, actual capacity, actual governance, actual responsibility. Is this a voluntary government or non-voluntarily government?
As valuable as 'liberty' (in the Manchester or Hobbesian sense) may be, it must be preceded by peace, order and security. Thus the government supercedes the authority of any given individual for its explicit purpose is Cameralist (to protect property owners, and to derive revenues thereby). Those who are a threat to property owners and privilege (private law) are outside of its purview and are to be dealt with in whatever way seems most appropriate.
The corporate body is formed for the interests of its customers and its owners, not some imaginary 'society' or 'rights' or what have you.
Liberté:hus the government supercedes the authority of any given individual for its explicit purpose is Cameralist (to protect property owners, and to derive revenues thereby). Those who are a threat to property owners and privilege (private law) are outside of its purview and are to be dealt with in whatever way seems most appropriate.
How does it gain said authority?
Liberté:Thus the government supercedes the authority of any given individual for its explicit purpose is Cameralist (to protect property owners, and to derive revenues thereby).
It would be more accurate to say that this is an ex post facto justification and victim rationalization rather than its "purpose".
CrazyCoot:If you believe in a limited state please tell me why you think that the shortcomings of monopolies, rising prices and decreasing quality, don't apply to the state and any other reasons why the state would do a better job than a private firm.
Think of it this way: the state is the PDA that outcompeted all the others.
scineram: Think of it this way: the state is the PDA that outcompeted all the others.
This is interesting I never thought about it that way.
scineram:Think of it this way: the state is the PDA that outcompeted all the others
Well two things:Can you give an example of voluntarily agreement in unanimity which brought about the environment of the state out competing all others? And what gives them the right to prohibit present competition?
Do they really need the right to outlaw other forms of competition when they've got the guns? I mean...isn't that kinda the whole point of being the institution of force?
In other words, I don't think they have the right, but they DO have the power.
bloomj31:Do they really need the right to outlaw other forms of competition when they've got the guns? I mean...isn't that kinda the whole point of being the institution of force?
If they are the only 'PDA' because they use violence or the threat of violence then they have no legitimate right in the first place.
Andrew Cain: If they are the only 'PDA' because they use violence or the threat of violence then they have no legitimate right in the first place.
But they ARE the threat of violence.
bloomj31:But they ARE the threat of violence.
Not necessarily. I could live on my property without interaction or with voluntary interaction and it not lead to PDA violence. If you are to assume that since PDA's can engage in violence makes them embody said violence then you would have to apply that to every human being since all human beings are capable of violence.
Andrew Cain: If you are to assume that since PDA's can engage in violence makes them embody said violence then you would have to apply that to every human being since all human beings are capable of violence.
If you are to assume that since PDA's can engage in violence makes them embody said violence then you would have to apply that to every human being since all human beings are capable of violence.
Human beings can be violent but an institution that literally is THE embodiment of violence in a society is also literally THE threat of violence. That's what the police are. They're the threat of violence. They're given sanction to use violent means to achieve certain ends and those means and ends depend on what the law is but they're still the literal threat of violence within society.
So I mean...let's assume that the current government never had to compete to become THE institution of violence, it doesn't change the fact that they've got the guns, they've got the power.
bloomj31:Human beings can be violent but an institution that literally is THE embodiment of violence in a society is also literally THE threat of violence. That's what the police are. They're the threat of violence.
Well that doesn't make sense. An institution is merely a collection of individuals. It is not as if becoming a police officer makes you more threatening.
bloomj31:They're given sanction to use violent means to achieve certain ends and those means and ends depend on what the law is but they're still the literal threat of violence within society.
And that is no different in many respects to a common individual. Citizens are actually allowed to arrest people. I don't know if you know that.
bloomj31:So I mean...let's assume that the current government never had to compete to become THE institution of violence, it doesn't change the fact that they've got the guns, they've got the power
Well we are talking about the legitimacy of the matter.
Andrew Cain: Well that doesn't make sense. An institution is merely a collection of individuals. It is not as if becoming a police officer makes you more threatening.
But it does give them more power than the average citizen, right? I mean, police can do more than just arrest people. These institutions are given the special power to hurt people. Not all institutions wield that power. The people who work for these institutions are granted that power too.
Andrew Cain: And that is no different in many respects to a common individual. Citizens are actually allowed to arrest people. I don't know if you know that.
Sure, citizens can arrest people, but they're not part of the apparatus of violence. They're doing something similar maybe to what police do (one of their powers at least) but they're not literally acting as the hand of the institution.
Andrew Cain: Well we are talking about the legitimacy of the matter.
But legitimacy implies law. They ARE the law. Or at least the executors of it.
Just to be clear, are you saying that they don't have the legal right to outlaw competition?
Liberté: Daniel Muffinburg: Liberté: .... The answer is not, however, 'no government' but real government; actual authority, actual capacity, actual governance, actual responsibility. Is this a voluntary government or non-voluntarily government? As valuable as 'liberty' (in the Manchester or Hobbesian sense) may be, it must be preceded by peace, order and security. Thus the government supercedes the authority of any given individual for its explicit purpose is Cameralist (to protect property owners, and to derive revenues thereby). Those who are a threat to property owners and privilege (private law) are outside of its purview and are to be dealt with in whatever way seems most appropriate. The corporate body is formed for the interests of its customers and its owners, not some imaginary 'society' or 'rights' or what have you.
So, a non-voluntary government?
Andrew Cain: bloomj31:Do they really need the right to outlaw other forms of competition when they've got the guns? I mean...isn't that kinda the whole point of being the institution of force?' If they are the only 'PDA' because they use violence or the threat of violence then they have no legitimate right in the first place.
How do you make sure they don't exist?
scineram: How do you make sure they don't exist?
This.
Andrew Cain: How does it gain said authority?
By the willingness of a significant majority of property holders to actually submit to its rulings and sovereignty.
Not at all. I grant you that at certain points many governments are bad at this, for reasons of bad organizational structure or bad leaders - but the same can be said of any failed corporation. The trick is to make sure that the right incentives, corporate structure and prospectus are in place to ensure (as far as is possible in any human endevour) that the right people and organizations exist. To a large extent this must rely on what economists like to call 'market forces', but not solely on 'market' forces, also on forces of the human mind, culture and civilizational development of a people. It must be suited to specific circumstances and societies. These can not be proscribed, for 'a constitution for all nations is fit for none'.
It is voluntary for those who hold property and can maintain themselves in a civilized manner. Barbarians are neither subject to nor protected by laws except at the sufferance of the sovereign.