Liberté: 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.
Andrew Cain: How does it gain said authority?
How does it gain said authority?
By the willingness of a significant majority of property holders to actually submit to its rulings and sovereignty.
Earlier you were rightfully decrying democracy...now it seems that you say that democracy is the legitimizing force for your proposed government?
Liberté: So, a non-voluntary government? 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.
So, a non-voluntary government?
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.
I assume you mean land owners? Why is land ownership relevant? What do you mean by "civilized manner"?
scineram: 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.
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.
There is obviously no reason to think of it this way for the simple reason that did not compete for clients. Even if it did, it's one of the basics of AE that competition is defined by open entry, not the number of firms.
scineram:How do you make sure they don't exist?
You oppose them. The minarchist position is to accept them... just because.
This has nothing to do with legitimacy. This has to do with a de facto requirement, basically that the elite by and large consent and thereby lead the masses to accept the sovereign. This is not what makes it 'right', this is a practical requirement.
I assume you mean land owners? Why is land ownership relevant?
Well, not so much anymore. Land ownership is important (as it factors into territorial control), but pretty much the intellectual and commercial elite and middle-class. Mostly the super-rich.
What do you mean by "civilized manner"?
If you have to ask, you'll never know?Not acting in a way that lowers property values, drives out commerce and disturbs any relevant portion of the elite who own the government or the oligarchy/dictatorship that runs it.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Caley McKibbin: You oppose them. The minarchist position is to accept them... just because.
What do you oppose them with?
bloomj31: Caley McKibbin: You oppose them. The minarchist position is to accept them... just because. What do you oppose them with?
Take your pick.
Caley McKibbin: Take your pick.
I don't know what I would use to personally oppose the military tbh.
bloomj31:I don't know what I would use to personally oppose the military tbh.
Our military is good at conquering an overt force. If you were part of a force that blended in with the local populace it would be very hard for them to conquer you. Also we the people have superior numbers, that means that we have the strategic advantage, the military has the tactical advantage (superior weapons and armor). If you are looking for a target of opportunity attack the transport trucks the military uses, the supply chain is their biggest weakness.
The tactics you use depend on the type of opponent. See Sun Tzu.
I think I get Bloom's point here (correct me if I'm wrong). It seems like he's saying that since we have a monopoly security system now, that must be what works. In other words, since the market hasn't evolved to provide security--against states, at least--maybe the market isn't the best provider of security. If it were, why isn't it providing security now--why didn't market competition prevent a monopolist from arising? Or anyway this is a question that seems related.
I think the market is evolving to provide more and more security. There's a multibillion-dollar private security industry, a multi-trillion-dollar insurance industry. I read somewhere around Mises or LRC that there are more private security guards than government police now.
The market does, in many places, provide most or all of the day-to-day security people actually need. If you live in a condo or apartment, security can be (often is) bundled in with your rent (or condo fees). The same if you operate a business in an office park, shopping center, airport, etc.--security comes bundled with your lease. Obviously it must be cost effective to pay for security in these places, or we wouldn't see businesses doing it everywhere.
So imagine the government police disappear, and all the existing security guards instead have the weapons, training and compensation to act as the primary enforcers of security, protecting people and property. Since all these property owners will no longer pay taxes, it'll be even easier for them to afford security services to make their properties more attractive to tenants.
So who would that leave unprotected right now? There are suburban homeowners. Some of these already hire security through homeowner's associations, and they may have gates and other security measures. That leaves suburbanites who don't have HOAs (and many prefer this). In their case, if they want security services, they'll have to buy them individually. But this would just be one more bill, along with water and electricity. Nobody's forced to buy water or power (or TV or internet), but just about everyone does. The security could just be a number to call for security officers in case of emergency, or could include monitored burglar alarms, regular patrols, etc. depending on what you're willing to pay for.
Now who does that leave without security? I guess rural people. But first, they aren't subject to much crime or conflict, since there aren't many people around them. Second, such people usually have a tradition of self-reliance and solving conflicts directly. Finally, if they feel that they need additional security, they can subscribe to a service (or start one, if none exists yet).
So there are really only a few minor changes on the market side. Those facilities and HOAs that don't currently provide much security would need to contract for more, in the absence of police. Entrepreneurs would need to provide a variety of new subscriber-based security for suburban homeowners and standalone businesses--the closest analogy in our current market is probably those 24/7 burglar alarm monitoring companies. However, the lack of taxes would make up for these costs. Also, private security would have to be ready to use violence to protect persons and property against aggression. Some of them just carry a flashlight and cell phone right now, like mall security. Bank security guards, though, are usually armed.
And of course you can already buy insurance for your property and your life. And insurance companies already handle disputes among each other through private arbitration. So I think a lot of the free-market order has been quietly forming over the last century or two while nobody was watching, just in the cracks where the state provided insufficient or inefficient security and arbitration. The entire institutional infrastructure of a pure market society is all around us and thriving.
If the state continues on its way to fiscal collapse, people might turn more and more to private alternatives to meet their security needs. It may not even take a conscious ideological shift--we could end up in market anarchy by default. It makes me think of how people lived with monarchy and slavery for thousands of years, and then in the last couple centuries, at least in the West, everybody just kind of changed their minds and didn't believe in those institutions anymore. Today, most people consider monarchy, Communism, fascism and dictatorship to be bad forms of government. What will the statists do when people don't have any enthusiasm left for the democratic/republican form of government? All the other options besides free markets are being winnowed away by their demonstrated failure over time.
scineram:Think of it this way: the state is the PDA that outcompeted all the others.
Without economic calculation how do I know I am getting the best bang for my buck?
A friend of mine lost his father over a year ago due to a hit and run. The driver was currently on the job. We know the business involved and the driver, we have names of both the company and the potential driver. The state spent the last year clowning around with the case never allowing the family the opportunity to continue legal recourse against the business or the individual who murderd their father. We weren't even allowed to touch the case. What kind of justice is this?
If this were a PDA they would have been fired 8 months ago. How is property being protected in these scenarios? How can we compare this performance to that of other domestic legal systems? We can't. If the state out-competed everyone as you assert, there would be no need for the continued legal monopoly.
Also need we point out the last 3 years of bailouts, intervention, and involvements which have effectively been nothing but the destruction of property and capital in the US? The state is the number one culprit for increased capital consumption. Your equation is ass backards, The state does not foster the accumulation of capital which makes an economy rich, the market will do that alone and by itself. (Capital markets grew long before the US, and long before democracy) The state negate's the speed by which capital does accumulate and in addition it increases the rate of capital consumption.
At some point Scineram you may feel inclined to actually start learning economics. No offense my friend but you have had the same consistent assertions since day one with us. Why continue with the badgering?