Inquisitor:And I want such a proof of minarchism.
Inquisitor:No, it means exactly what I said - if you're going to demand such proofs of market anarchism, I will in turn demand such a proof of minarchism. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
libertarian:Is there any rigorous proof or computer simulation/emulation on market anarchy that it would work to prevent physical force the same as or better than a minarchist government? .
As Inquistor pointed previously this assumes you your self have rigorous proof in regards minarchism or you have someway of quantifying the risk of physical force. Only if we have a benchmark from which to work from such an exercise will be superflous. And you implicitly assume minarchism (what that actually means I don't know) is the benchmark yet fail to give us something to work from to show anarchism being better at preventing physical force.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
libertarian: Well, you have to first proof minarchism and anarchism so you can compare minarchism with anarchism. Minarchism is proven by Hong Kong, etc. Now it is the time to prove anarchism. Your argument does not work in turing minarchists to anarchists. If there are no such argument, they you guys here have blind faith (i.e. prejudice) that anarchism is better at handling violence than minarchism.
Why does Hong Kong constitute minarchy? And again how would you suggest we compare Hong Kong with a hypothetical anarchist society as to which deals with physical aggression?
Physiocrat:quantifying
libertarian: Physiocrat:quantifying I am not quantifying. I hate quantification, since you know its utilitarian to quantify. But I want a proof that anarchism would not collapse from physical force. Somalia is unstable and poor, probably due to anarchy. Your guys are accepting anarchism as an axiom.
Please then tell me how we are to compare them. If you don't tell us we can't answer your question to your satisfaction? Further "minarchist" societies rarely exist since state power in them just grows and grows and thus collapse because of physical force. Also does Hong Kong constitute a minarchist state?
Ever been on the internet? Did anyone beat you up?
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
Here's Peden's Article on Ancient Ireland:
Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment
An Island Out of Time
A little bit from a blog about Smith Island...
I bring it up here because, in over 300 years of continuous settlement, the island's residents have never seen fit to set up a government. There are no cops, no jails, and no compulsory city taxes; public goods are provided informally or through the local Methodist Church, which is the closest the island has to a governing body. (I suppose this makes it paleolibertarian.) The only exception I know of is a small school operated by the county. There used to be a second school, but a few years ago they shut it down. Not that the state has no presence. The local crabbers and oystermen and terrapin-hunters -- virtually all self-employed -- are full of disdain for outside regulators, whose efforts to preserve Chesapeake species and otherwise exert their authority have fallen far more heavily on the independent watermen than on recreational crabbers or on the larger corporate fishing/crabbing/etc. operations elsewhere in the Bay. There's a lot of disdain for environmentalists, too, despite the locals' considerable appreciation for their environment: Thanks to the aforementioned regulatory battles, enviros tend to be regarded as well-salaried yuppies with no appreciation for the ways their rules affect the watermen. Most of Smith Island consists of marshes, and is thus uninhabitable. Rona and I spent two nights in Tylerton, population circa 70, which can only be accessed from the other villages via the water. The other two towns are Ewell (the largest of the three, with a couple hundred residents and a small tourist trade) and Rhodes Point (which is run-down and arguably dying); to get to them from Tylerton, we had to paddle over on a canoe. There are no cars in Tylerton, though many of the locals drive golf carts. There are a few cars in the other two villages, which are connected by a one-mile road. They tend to be old junkers and are outnumbered by the aforementioned golf carts. I don't mean to make the place sound like it's cut off from modern consumerist ways. Satellite dishes are plentiful, and I'm told that packaged food is popular, too, perhaps because even the tastiest local seafood (and it's quite tasty indeed) gets tiresome if you've been working with it all day. The work is tough, and if it's not as backbreaking as it used to be, there is now the added pain of watching the island's way of life slowly die. It's hard to get to Smith Island -- it's a 45-minute ferry ride from the mainland, and not the most easily accessible part of the mainland at that. But if you can't visit, you can still read Horton's book, which I recommend highly. Radio populists will especially enjoy the chapter called "VHF," on the strange and lovely world of marine radio. "Think of it, compared to normal communication, as a military bugle is to popular music. But in the crab boats, kitchens, and shanties of islanders, the VHF is a non-stop jam session, a giant party line, open to anyone with a radio, which out here is absolutely everyone. Across the ether of mid-Chesapeake flows a quixotic, rambunctious stream of consciousness, blends of earthy humor, religion, everybody's and nobody's business, to a background of sea gulls mewing and diesel engines rumbling."
Reason Magazine's article Desert Autonomous Zone talking about the movie Off The Grid: Life on the Mesa. Having talked to people that live out there, they claim that the film makers found the most fucked up people in the bunch and made a movie about them. The guy I have talked to seemed sane and normal enough and even has a web-site about the place.
I think an interesting place to follow is Somalia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
Those aren't proofs. They are case studies, evidence.
The only proof possible for minarchy or anarchy is based on logic, and logically anarchy is more efficient than minarchy as it does not involve a monopoly over protection.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Computer games = Proof.
Final Fantasy is really how the future is going to look like.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Don Roberto:I think an interesting place to follow is Somalia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
Please infomr me, when has there not been a government (transitional, temporary, or established by external governments) in the Somalia of the 20th-21st centuries.
I am the host of Freedomain Radio, the most popular philosophy show on the web, and a Top 10 Finalist in the 2007 Podcast Awards. http://www.freedomainradio.com
FreedomainRadio:You might want to check out my podcast and blog - particularly the first few podcasts, where I go into a fairly rigorous analysis of how a stateless society can actually work.
Physiocrat: Here's Peden's Article on Ancient Ireland:
Thanks for the link!
Niccolò: Don Roberto: I think an interesting place to follow is Somalia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia Please infomr me, when has there not been a government (transitional, temporary, or established by external governments) in the Somalia of the 20th-21st centuries.
Don Roberto: I think an interesting place to follow is Somalia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
Well yes, I agree, there has been a government but that is not the point. The question is what this government actually has been able to do. I mean, anyone can proclaim to be the ruler (reminds me of latest news from Kenya) but that doesn't give you anything if noone lets you rule and disobeys your laws, especially if you don't have any means to force them. In that sense the somalian case should be considered a failure.
What I'm looking forward to is to see whether the market can start to provide the necessary infrastructure, institutions etc. before anyone manages to turn it into a modern state.
Sure - the outlines of my main approach are here:
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2004/12/stateless-society-examination-of.html
For how a free society prevents the reemergence of a govt:
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/06/stateless-dictatorships-how-free.html
General FAQ Part 1:
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/06/freedomain-radio-frequently-asked_03.html
General FAQ Part 2:
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/06/freedomain-radio-faq-part-2.html
Enjoy! :)
mike barskey:Thanks for providing the links. For others: if I get around to reading them, I'll post a summary of his position. If someone else reads (or has read) them, please feel free to post a summary. Thanks.
For defence, he only mentions 'army', without navy, and other technologies. Armies are altruistic. Almost all of our soldiers in our army do not want to kill civilians. If they are allowed to kill civilians, then we would conquer the world in no time.
Our defence is highly INEFFICIENT, because it is public defence. He does not mention new technology to slaughter individuals made from competition in the free market. Native Americans died and are attacked because of advanced European technology. He does not mention remote-control fighters, remote controlled battleships, remote controlled thermonuclear weapons, robotic slaughterers that would arise CHEAPLY from our free market.
I know that minarchism is economically, logically and deontologically inconsistent
Geography is always open to monopoly, if force is involved. That's because one cannot switch to another place on land if one monopoly corecively dominates and restricts the freedom to move. I'd go with a mutually agreed monopoly defence to prevent such circumstance from physical force (i.e. a state).
Since you are using Hong Kong as your "proof" of minarchism, how about this:
An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West
Right, so you're not so much interested in debating as just stating that the supplied articles are wrong, without providing any factual or logical corrections.
Byzantine: In a pluralistic society, anarchy tends to collapse into tribal warfare: the Rio slums, post-Saddam Iraq, Somalia, etc.
Those people are acting on the assumption that in the near future a monoply on violence will form. You are witnesses the birth of government, not the death of it.
Peace
I would describe anarchy as a society where no single individual or entity has a monopoly on offensive force; nothing more, nothing less. In an essentially homogenous society, this works fine: the American frontier, medieval Iceland, early medieval Europe, etc. In a pluralistic society, anarchy tends to collapse into tribal warfare: the Rio slums, post-Saddam Iraq, Somalia, etc.
I really don't understand this monocentric attitude, spread by the likes of Hoppe. I take the exact opposite view: an anarchy is by its very nature a pluralistic society. Statism is political homogeny, while anarchy is political pluralism in its most extreme form. A lack of monopoly inherently has pluralist implications. In my mind, decentralization essentially equals pluralism. A homogenous society is more monocentric. A purely homogenous society is impossible to sustain in a dynamic world in which people migrate, interbreed and have incentives to associate and trade with whomever can benefit them (of any social group). Self-interest knows no social group (I.E. I could really care less if the people I deal with are from a different race or religion then me, as long as I benefit from them).
In freedom of association, the results of people's choices will be a mixed bag. In freedom of association, there is nothing you can do to stop people on the margin from beginning to "pluralize" on your attempt to keep a homogenous society (I.E. some dudes are going to keep inviting Pablos and Yusefs into your neighborhood, hiring them and directly trading with them). Over time, your homogenous society will be broken up by people persueing their actual self-interest and this will intensify. It would be counterproductive in the long term, especially economically, to try to keep your society entirely monocentric. There is no such thing as a sustainable ethnocentric society. On the contrary of your claims that multicultural societies inherently collapse, enthocentric societies are ultimately doomed to failure in the modern world if anything by the mere laws of economics, without the help of any government.
Morty:Since you are using Hong Kong as your "proof" of minarchism, how about this:An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West
Byzantine:multicultural