How Could A Voluntary Society Function? (full explanation video)

 

Please pass it on, thanks.

I feel like you're making the "anarchy can" argument the way statists make the "government can" argument. You're just explaining ways that society could work. Well serial killers also COULD stop killing, but they probably won't. So I think you're avoiding the more fundamental "why" of society by only focusing on the "how".

You do have some talk of incentives, but its highly contextual. For example - "what if firms are dishonest to their consumers? - the consumers will make it public and the firm will suffer". That's only one way to handle the problem of dishonesty, and if you want to get technical, dishonesty isn't even necessarily undesirable.

I think you need to dig and find the roots of what people's incentives are in anarchy, and use that as a starting position. If you want to look at hypothetical DRO's in anarchy, you might also do well to pick up historical cases. Not necessarily iceland. For individuals, you could use things like neighborhood associations and fraternal societies. For inter-corporate DRO's you could use examples like VISA.

Sieben:

I think you need to dig and find the roots of what people's incentives are in anarchy

FTFY :P

In other words, I think it helps to explain how most people want the same general things -- at least instinctively.

Sieben:

I feel like you're making the "anarchy can" argument the way statists make the "government can" argument.

What 'government can' argument do statists make?

You're just explaining ways that society could work.

Yes?

Well serial killers also COULD stop killing, but they probably won't.

Huh?

So I think you're avoiding the more fundamental "why" of society by only focusing on the "how".

Are you saying that I'm avoiding the reasons for why the things I came up with would come up? Because I think I was very explicit with the reasons why those things would come up. I start with the basic economic need and build from there; and I try to cover most of the basic problems that require tackling. I'm still not following what your criticism is.

You do have some talk of incentives, but its highly contextual. For example - "what if firms are dishonest to their consumers? - the consumers will make it public and the firm will suffer".

I don't understand the problem.

That's only one way to handle the problem of dishonesty,

Can you be more specific? The dishonesty of what party in my story are you talking about, and what other ways would there be that are relevant to the story?

and if you want to get technical, dishonesty isn't even necessarily undesirable.

Elaborate please.

I think you need to dig and find the roots of what people's incentives are in anarchy, and use that as a starting position.

I believe I did that. People have a desire to trade, and so there is a desire to know who is reliable and who isn't. And then it follows that there is a desire by your trading partners that you can be checked. Et cetera.

If you want to look at hypothetical DRO's in anarchy, you might also do well to pick up historical cases. Not necessarily iceland. For individuals, you could use things like neighborhood associations and fraternal societies. For inter-corporate DRO's you could use examples like VISA.

I wanted to do a theoretical explanation that people can follow from the ground up. I believe that is essential. In the same way that people understand what the economic function of money is, of savings, of trade, and all the things we are familiar with. We don't need to know any history to understand these things. It's only with sound theory that we can look at history and judge it.

Nielsio:

What 'government can' argument do statists make?

They say things like "the market fails to provide equal goods and services but the government can redistribute wealth in a more fair and equal way", or "under anarchy, courts are susceptible to bribery, but the government can provide fair courts for everyone".

So they entirely ignore incentives, which is (in my mind) the largest part of political philosophy. The state is judge in its own case ffs!

Nielsio:

I don't understand the problem.

The way I understand anarchy is that its a set of general incentives. Players can build games with contextual incentives, as in your reputation game, but the underlying incentives are still there. And I think the incentives are very simple - to get what you want. I think psychopaths are going to do bad things under states and under anarchies. I would focus on what about anarchy makes life easier for good people and harder for lawless people.

Nielsio:

Can you be more specific? The dishonesty of what party in my story are you talking about, and what other ways would there be that are relevant to the story?

So, historically reputations have been handled by intermediaries, like clans, who essentially loan you their brand name. That's kind of similar to what you talked about in the movie. But you can also just take someone to court if they screw with you. You can also just ignore them. It all depends on prices and subjective marginal valuations.

Nielsio:

Elaborate please.

I remember reading Bryan Caplan talk about how some firms provide shoddy/dishonest customer service. The kneejerk reaction is to say this is "bad" and find some way to alleviate the situation (either via regulation or competition), but Caplan wants us to look deeper. By not providing quality DRO for its customers, firms can offer their services at a lower cost. So saying that firms would or should operate honestly and transparently is basically making a central planning argument - its an idea about how resources should be allocated.

Caplan also has an analysis of fraud as something that the market implicitly demands, which is kind of interesting.

Nielsio:

I believe I did that. People have a desire to trade, and so there is a desire to know who is reliable and who isn't. And then it follows that there is a desire by your trading partners that you can be checked. Et cetera.

Ceteris parabis, there is a desire for knowledge or certainty. But IRL its not ceteris parabis. There's an opportunity cost to obtaining information. You're also making assumptions about people's risk tolerance. Maybe anarchy would be LESS legally stable than the status quo because people were willing to take large risks with whom they associate.

I think you're trying to paint a very calm and ordered picture of anarcho capitalism. I think that has persuasive value, and I think there are good inductive reasons ancap will be more lawful than the status quo, but we can't know for sure.

Nielsio:

We don't need to know any history to understand these things. It's only with sound theory that we can look at history and judge it.

Its up to you. That's just what >> I << think would be convincing. To use history to illustrate theory. The major strength is that no one can argue with it, or accuse you of just making stuff up.