Last night I was considering the assertion that a State has a monopoly on force and realized this isn't true - the simple fact is that there is more than one state, and more than one of them allow immigration. In fact, it would seem the difference between a PDA and a government isn't a monopoly on force, but a monopoly on a geographic area.
Now, given that the cost of war would be born entirely by the PDA in an Ancap society, it would seem reasonable to me that the PDAs might not want to come to blows. A war between two PDAs would become costly and might wind up hurting other customers.
So, let us say we have an Ancap society. I'm hiring Mars Security as my PDA, but I want to switch to Athena Safety Systems. Mars decides it doesn't want to lose my income and takes control of my premises. They now forcibly take my income, and have in effect become a state. Now, presumably I could still hire Athena and ask them to defend me from the tyrannous Mars, but Athena may well be willing to let Mars have me to avoid a costly war. In fact, Athena may well do the same thing with it's customers, and form an agreement with Mars not to interfere with each other - it saves more money and guarantees more income for them both.
So now these two suddenly tyrannous PDAs have a monopoly on customers in a geographic area. It might look rather patchwork, depending on their customers before they went tyrannous, or perhaps they might, in their agreement, trade territories to become contiguous and thus reduce costs. But they have become states in all but how they refer to themselves.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Aster_Lacnala:In fact, it would seem the difference between a PDA and a government isn't a monopoly on force, but a monopoly on a geographic area.
Government has a monopoly on force in a given territory. Membership is mandatory! You cannot withdraw your support (financial), nor take it to a competitor.
A PDA has none of these characteristics. It is no different then you local grocery store.
Aster_Lacnala:They now forcibly take my income, and have in effect become a state.
Nothing special here. Any business can turn criminal and decided to rob you instead of serve you.
I thought you understood the costs involved. such costs cannot be externalized on other individuals such as in the case of a government. The owners must bare the costs of their own initiated and risky violence.
Aster_Lacnala:So now these two suddenly tyrannous PDAs have a monopoly on customers in a geographic area. It might look rather patchwork, depending on their customers before they went tyrannous, or perhaps they might, in their agreement, trade territories to become contiguous and thus reduce costs. But they have become states in all but how they refer to themselves.
So you're back to where you started. All this purely hypothetical scenario proves (if anything) is that we have all to gain and nothing to loose by experimenting with the free society.
It seems to me that the principle feature of a government is that it has the generally accepted authority to decide exceptions; that is to say in cases where something is not positively legal or positively prohibited, the government is the final arbiter to decide whether or not a given action was legal. This is developed by Carl Schmitt in his Concept of the Political. Because it decides exceptions, as well as deciding what the boundaries of exceptions are, the state has a perpetual tendency to aggrandize its power in institutional and member-based self-interest. Now, what is really interesting about modern national-states is that they are far more centralized and totalitarian in ideology than the previous forms of government, compared to which even the Roman or Persian empire was a rather loose arrangement.
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” - Proudhon
Htut:It seems to me that the principle feature of a government is that
To me, the irrefutable principle feature of government is best described by Mises himself:
"It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom. "
--Human Action
It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action
This is true, but is almost trivialized once one realizes that most institutions in society only survive in the ultimate by violent action or the threat thereof. Sometimes this violent action is personal, most often it is a reference to State violence and (we might imagine) it could be privately coordinated violence organized upon voluntary and commericial lines. Whatever the case, if we are not to be robbed by every ne'er-do-well we must have institutions of organized violence. To use it as a definition of the state leaves us with the problem of wide-spread systematic violence in any social organization, just as all actions are redistributive all property is violence. To use the definition of the state-as-violence as an argument against the state is ineffective, since it is only the claim that the state is wrongful violence that is in dispute, not that the state (along with many other organizations we would consider lawful) are violent, potentially more violent than the state.The definition and critique of the state has to do, it seems to me, more with its epistemic insanity and non-voluntary nature in dispute resolution, rather than some general feature which may be present in grocery stores if one looks closely enough.
Aster_Lacnala:In fact, Athena may well do the same thing with it's customers, and form an agreement with Mars not to interfere with each other - it saves more money and guarantees more income for them both.
Perfectly sensible and most likely outcome, by far.
Z.
DD5:So you're back to where you started. All this purely hypothetical scenario proves (if anything) is that we have all to gain and nothing to loose by experimenting with the free society.
Not quite. Where you started (a state) can differ by a lot from where you end up (a different form of state), and that's excluding the "bumpy ride" of getting there. By my book, you have MUCH more to lose (which you may start appreciating after the fact) and not (if anything) to gain.
Htut:one realizes that most institutions in society only survive in the ultimate by violent action or the threat thereof.
Such as?
Htut:it could be privately coordinated violence organized upon voluntary and commericial lines.
Like?
Htut:we must have institutions of organized violence.
Why?
Htut:just as all actions are redistributive all property is violence.
Explain.
Htut: rather than some general feature which may be present in grocery stores if one looks closely enough.
I looked--couldn't find anything.
Of course, this is merely clever confusion put forth by the statist. The state is justified in employing coercion and violence because everything involves coercion and violence--even mutually beneficial/voluntary exchange!
"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."
z1235:By my book, you have MUCH more to lose (which you may start appreciating after the fact) and not (if anything) to gain.
That clearly wan't the core argument that I made in response to the concern being made.
z1235:Where you started (a state) can differ by a lot from where you end up (a different form of state),...
How such a self evident truth of reality debunks the notion of a free society is beyond me.
z1235: ... and that's excluding the "bumpy ride" of getting there.
... and that's excluding the "bumpy ride" of getting there.
Yeah well, life is bumpy, and perhaps bumpier then it should be due to the State.
Regarding these "how would X work under anarchy" threads, I think this is relevant:
Sage: Remember, the fundamental issue is competition vs. monopoly. Monopolies are inherently rights-violating (and hence are immoral) and face information and incentive problems (and hence are inefficient). Markets, on the other hand, can exist without aggression and have a more effective incentive structure. Therefore, a competitive legal system is preferable to a monopolistic one. I notice minarchists often argue against anarchism by asking how some specific scenario would be dealt with under anarchy, and then, unconvinced by the response, conclude that anarchy is undesirable or absurd. But these types of questions are irrelevant: the anarchist has no burden of proof to show how specific scenarios would be handled. What they do have to show is that the incentive structure of anarchy is superior to the incentive structure of minarchy. And this they have done decisively: market competition has a more effective incentive structure than political democracy. Unless the minarchist can come up with a reason why the legal system should be excepted from this rule, they have no choice but to abandon statism and accept anarchism.
Remember, the fundamental issue is competition vs. monopoly. Monopolies are inherently rights-violating (and hence are immoral) and face information and incentive problems (and hence are inefficient). Markets, on the other hand, can exist without aggression and have a more effective incentive structure. Therefore, a competitive legal system is preferable to a monopolistic one.
I notice minarchists often argue against anarchism by asking how some specific scenario would be dealt with under anarchy, and then, unconvinced by the response, conclude that anarchy is undesirable or absurd. But these types of questions are irrelevant: the anarchist has no burden of proof to show how specific scenarios would be handled. What they do have to show is that the incentive structure of anarchy is superior to the incentive structure of minarchy. And this they have done decisively: market competition has a more effective incentive structure than political democracy.
Unless the minarchist can come up with a reason why the legal system should be excepted from this rule, they have no choice but to abandon statism and accept anarchism.
Htut:Whatever the case, if we are not to be robbed by every ne'er-do-well we must have institutions of organized violence. To use it as a definition of the state leaves us with the problem of wide-spread systematic violence in any social organization, just as all actions are redistributive all property is violence.
True, most or all social institutions ultimately come down to violence (usually self-defense). But the crucial point is that the State is the organization of initiatory violence, i.e. aggression, whereas something like property is based on defensive violence.
Htut:To use the definition of the state-as-violence as an argument against the state is ineffective, since it is only the claim that the state is wrongful violence that is in dispute, not that the state (along with many other organizations we would consider lawful) are violent, potentially more violent than the state.
Well, some people are so deluded as to think that the State is a voluntary organization, so it's important to keep hammering on this point. (Incidentally, people who think the State is voluntary usually also give a public goods justification for government, but they don't see the contradiction.) Before you can argue that the State's use of violence is wrong, you first have to establish that the State uses violence.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
<history newb>As has happened to create our current states right?</history newb> But seriously a requirement for a free society is universal armament, that is, every man woman and child bearing arms. Ok FINE maybe not children... but damn they should get sling shots or something. In conclusion when MARS comes to your house, I hope they bring an army with them considering that you have a fmg 50 cal machine gun ready for them.
The minarchist is, by giving these scenarios, attempting to find a reason some aspect of the state should exist. The scenario may be reasoned away, but to simply say they shouldn't bring it up is to say there can be no valid arguments... which you may believe, I'll grant. However, simply telling everyone who disagrees with you not to speak doesn't make you right, nor will they accept you as right until you have addressed their concerns.
BTW, how do I quote someone? There isn't a button above for it. Do these support some form of markup?
Aster_Lacnala:BTW, how do I quote someone?
It might be a browser problem. But when you reply there is a little blue "qoute" link at the bottom of the text you are replying to. You can highlight any text in the original and click the qoute link.
Anything that operates based on ownership and principles of command, such as a baking club.
Anything that involves private ownership protection and rules for governing disputes, and enforcing them.
Anything which alters the ownership and control of physical resources is economically redistributive. Like taxes, the enforcement of any particular property boundaries involves the use of violence to prohibit others from using such resources.
I would argue that it is more fundamentally non-voluntary than aggressive. It seems to me that the line of aggression as an abstract concept is rather hard to draw.
Sage: Htut:Whatever the case, if we are not to be robbed by every ne'er-do-well we must have institutions of organized violence. To use it as a definition of the state leaves us with the problem of wide-spread systematic violence in any social organization, just as all actions are redistributive all property is violence. True, most or all social institutions ultimately come down to violence (usually self-defense). But the crucial point is that the State is the organization of initiatory violence, i.e. aggression, whereas something like property is based on defensive violence.
Well, property under the State is based on initiatory violence, or at least it's impossible to say that de facto property rights as we have them now are really based fully on defensive violence. (Ex: Most people don't own a gun.)
Also, it depends on who gets to define what is initiatory and what is defensive. In other words, who gets to define rights? Who gets to define aggression? The State has a NAP. To a devout statist, all state violence is defensive (by definition). So I find these words a little less than elucidating.
Why anarchy fails
AJ:In other words, who gets to define rights? Who gets to define aggression?
People who have Ph.D.s in philosophy, that's who.
Aster_Lacnala:The minarchist is, by giving these scenarios, attempting to find a reason some aspect of the state should exist. The scenario may be reasoned away, but to simply say they shouldn't bring it up is to say there can be no valid arguments... which you may believe, I'll grant. However, simply telling everyone who disagrees with you not to speak doesn't make you right, nor will they accept you as right until you have addressed their concerns.
I posted a reply to this here.
Htut: Such as? Anything that operates based on ownership and principles of command, such as a baking club. Like? Anything that involves private ownership protection and rules for governing disputes, and enforcing them. Explain. Anything which alters the ownership and control of physical resources is economically redistributive. Like taxes, the enforcement of any particular property boundaries involves the use of violence to prohibit others from using such resources. True, most or all social institutions ultimately come down to violence (usually self-defense). But the crucial point is that the State is the organization of initiatory violence, i.e. aggression, whereas something like property is based on defensive violence. I would argue that it is more fundamentally non-voluntary than aggressive. It seems to me that the line of aggression as an abstract concept is rather hard to draw.
That’s great, but before we render words like “voluntary,” “coercion,” and “violence” entirely meaningless, let’s examine the facts:
Employer “A” terminates his contract with worker “B” because the latter’s wage is not justified by his/her current productivity. Likewise, worker “B” may terminate the contract with employer “A” because the remuneration to worker “A” is not on par with his/her productivity. Now, if Employer “A” was told that this contract is nonnegotiable, and in fact permanent, he/she would certainly never voluntarily agree to it. But, on the other hand, employer “A” may agree to certain stipulations, such as, “if the employee’s productivity increases, he/she will not receive increased remunerations, and if the employee’s productivity declines, then he/she may not be terminated.” But, most contracts between employers and employees are negotiable, and both parties can exit them at will. Voluntary economic transactions are not "redistributive," in the sense that there is a proportionate transfer; but rather, both parties gain, which is why they partake in exchange (value is purely subjective).
But you're right, the grocery store is not free from violence and coercion, since the state forces employers to terminate employees through government mandated minimum wage laws. Unfortunately, there is no contract with the state—every action is violence, done without consent. Aggression is only abstract and difficult to define for the statist, for obvious and self-serving reasons.
Sage: AJ:In other words, who gets to define rights? Who gets to define aggression? People who have Ph.D.s in philosophy, that's who.
In other words, "objective ethics." This (and that whole article) talks past anyone who doesn't accept that there are objective standards of right and wrong, such as anyone who says actions can only be right or wrong for a given purpose. I think we're at an impasse.
AJ,
you're objective/subjective paradigm is a red herring
wilderness: AJ, you're objective/subjective paradigm is a red herring
JackSkylark: wilderness: AJ, you're objective/subjective paradigm is a red herring Why?
excellent question! Since you asked, objective and subjective are void concepts unless related to something. And what do they relate to? Is peace, liberty, and justice AJ wants? I don't know since he only talks about objective and subjective. So he's on a tangent.
By objective I just mean "right or wrong without reference to any purpose," i.e., not "right for this purpose" or "wrong for that purpose," but (apparently) just "right" or just "wrong." In other words, "right" and "wrong" divorced from any notion of purpose. Please understand that I am not here critiquing the idea that something can just be "wrong," but that is what I mean when I use the objective/subjective contrast.
If there is a better term for what I mean, let me know and I will consider using it.
AJ:By objective I just mean "right or wrong without reference* to any purpose," i.e., not "right for this purpose" or "wrong for that purpose," but (apparently) just "right" or just "wrong." In other words, "right" and "wrong" divorced from any notion of purpose. Please understand that I am not here critiquing the idea that something can just be "wrong," but that is what I mean when I use the objective/subjective contrast.
See JackSkylark? Void of anything; in relation to nothing. AJ's on a tangent. It's a red herring.
*edit: my underline and bold