How no government works

I recently got into a discussion on one of the forums I frequent about how an anarcho-capitalist society would work. I am not quite an AnCap, but I believe it deserves a somewhat knowledgeable representative so I stood up for it. There is one fellow who seems open to considering the idea, but I am unsure if I am explaining things correctly. Normally, I don't like to have other people have me debate, but this is a special case in that I am representing something that I am not quite certain on. 

A link to the discussion: hxxp://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=460141&page=3

Am I doing a good job? Anything I should mention/stop talking about?

I think the question is upside down and backwards. If we lived in a society devoid of government, people would ask, "How the hell can you have a society where there is one person/organization which has unilateral power to decide all disputes - even disputes involving themselves - in a given territory, without a total breakdown of all social order?" As it turns out, the historical record clearly shows that the more completely the State manifests itself, the more completely the fabric of society is ripped to shreds with devastating consequences to human life and prosperity. The wars of the 20th century are the ultimate illustration of this point. The History Channel-style propaganda in the seven decades since the close of formal hostilities paints out the wars as some kind of epic struggle of good against evil - as if we live in a comic book universe. The reality is that the wars of the 20th century, like all wars, were the inevitable result of publicly subsidized, aggressive organizations equipped with standing armies, aka States. The wars were nothing more than territorial ambition funded on the sweating backs of peasants conscripted into military production and fought by commoners conscripted into ranks of trained bullet-stopping brigades. This is the same game the Elites have been playing for millenia. Like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football kick, the masses fall for it every single time.

Clayton -

I would like a critique on this post. Sorry if it is a bit long.

 

Problem is, without an overseeing body there would be generally no way of knowing whether a PDA is corrupt. Right now we have a complicated hierarchy that does it's best to reduce corruption as much as possible. And guess what: countries like the Scandinavian ones have the lowest corruption rates in the world. Corruption and crime are the biggest problem where the central authority is weakest (Somalia etc).

Consumer groups. Also, Communist China is pretty corrupt and they have a very centralized government

• People wouldn't necessarily know. Right now we have a (more or less) free press that is protected by the state and we have several layers of overseeing bodies.

Again, consumer groups. Also, a free press would not vanish without a government to oversee it, it would still exist. If anything, without controls on what could and could not be published (state secrets, etc) it would be freer.

You mean using their own weapons? Doesn't really seem like a good idea.

And pro-bono PDAs. And cheap PDAs. etc

1) many people can't afford to/don't have to pay taxes because they are unemployed or extremely poor. What about them? 2) I don't know if it would be much cheaper. It's very possible that some cases would just be ignored since the potential customers can't pay enough.

1) such people generally aren't as well protected by the police, either. 2) Cases would generally be taken, if only to prevent the PDAs clients from being attacked. For example, a murderer or robber in town would attract the ire of local law enforcement groups even if they only targetted those with no protection, since the potential of them attacking a client would be an incentive to go after them anyway. Plus, the notoriety of catching a killer or robber would add to their reputation.

Huh? That's a very poor argument. For one, the people do "hunt down" murderers who kill the homeless. The only problem is that often you don't have any clues or don't even know if the guy in question was even killed or just disappeared. Still, the police tries and has solved such cases before. If it were PDAs instead, they would never do anything. Better? Not really. Also, it's not just the homeless. There are many poor and/or unemployed people who pay no or barely any taxes yet still get police protection. In your system? Tough luck.

First, even ignoring pro-bono PDAs, charity PDAs, etc they still have a reason to go after murderers (see above). Second, compare the number of murders of the homeless to the number of those who kill the homeless caught, and the compare the number of criminals who target the affluent who get caught.

But there is a clear set of laws that are equal for everyone. In your system, victims could just cherry-pick a court/PDA of their choice and have the criminal punished in a completely unjust way. What if he was innocent? Tough luck! There are no control mechanisms.

First, negotiation between representatives of PDAs would lower the chances of that. Second, a PDA responsible for going after the innocent would not gain a positive reputation, and would suffer a loss of customers. Third, in the current system, many are executed for crimes they didn't commit in some countries. Even in places with no death penalty, there are those imprisoned for decades for crimes they didn't commit, whereas imprisonment would be a very rare thing in an anarchist society (first because the costs of imprisonment would generally outweigh any benefits barring the worst criminals, and second because imprisonment constitutes kidnapping, which is a worse crime than most and thus would draw the ire of the prisoners' PDAs if they didn't commit a very serious crime).

So if a poor guy is the criminal, do you really think a private defense agency would care about defending a guy without any money? Also, what if that PDA goes by different laws than the PDA that is hired by the victims? There are just countless practical problems, I could go on and on.

Successfully defending someone would gain, again , positive reputation. Also, what happens when a Canadian breaks American laws, or an American in Canada breaks Canadian laws and then moves back? Negotiation, extradition, etc. By that vein of logic, there are countless problems with different countries having different legal systems; there should only be a single set of laws for the entire world, enforced by a massive intra-governmental bureaucracy.

The problem is, those are all just minor "solutions". Sure, some businessmen might pay for a few roads. Sure, some companies might finance cheap roads. But there are simply so many roads in a country like the US, there is no way they would all be handled properly without some sort of central organization. There are many poorer quarters where nobody would ever do anything. Half the country would turn into some kind of slum and the majority of people would have a mentality of "I'm sure someone else is going to build those roads for me".

Except the places without roads and a demand for them would be very good targets for road companies or, alternatively, entrepreneurial locals. Yes, there would be less roads, but that would simply mean an expansion of alternative modes of transportation, which would assist in dealing with the "environmental problem" that you mentioned. It would be a relatively simple and profitable way to make money, so there is no more reason for there to be a huge shortage of roads than there is for there to be a huge shortage of cars because the government doesn't pay for their production.

I believe every human deserves the right to get an education if he wants to. In your system that doesn't seem possible. You are also again relying on many different things that might work - however, that is by no means certain. What if there is a recession and charities have to close down? What if businesses go bankrupt? And so on. If education is provided by the state then it will at least always be there, unless the whole country collapses. Sure, the budget might be cut in dire times, but chances are that everyone who wants to go to school will still be able to.

You do? Well, good for you! Why don't you go pay for everyone's free education? While you're at it, I reckon everyone ought to get free pizza and beer, too.

What if a person doesn't want an education? In most of the Western world, he doesn't get a choice either way, forcing unwilling students into schools and discouraging those who are willing. Also, the vast majority of people would have a chance at an education under the anarchist system. True, some wouldn't, but then there are people with no chance at a real education in the current system, either. Students in east-central Detroit are, to all practical purposes, getting no education.  Furthermore, education provided by the state is just as in danger of cuts and losses as a privately provided one is, and it is far more expensive regardless.

Sweden has one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world, ahead of Germany... Norway is #4, even.

http://www.economist.com/node/7880173?story_id=7880173

"Almost no net private sector jobs since 1950"

There are some other interesting details about the Swedish economic model in there, too.

And do you have any evidence for that claim? Countries like Sweden or Germany have had free education for many decades and currently both of us seem to be doing splendid. I can't speak for Sweden since I don't live there, but Germany's economy is currently the 4th strongest in the world

.

Sweden has been living off of past success (see the article above). Germany has the benefit of about 50 years of a very hands-off central bank avoiding inflation like the plague (which made German currency a very valuable currency for quite some time), relatively low regulations on most sectors compared to France or the US, heavy free market reforms after WW2 thanks to people like Ludwig Erhard, and has constantly had a relatively strong liberal/libertarian party that prevents the German government from extending itself too far (the FDP). There was a time when burning women for witchcraft was the norm in Europe, and the most powerful Europeans were some of the most effective at burning women for witchcraft, but burning witches did not create the prosperity of the likes of Spain, France, and England. When you compare Germany to the current motley crew of interventionists and inflationistas like China, the USA, Japan and France it certainly looks great, just like how Spain looked great compared to Scotland, Novgorod, or the Cumans. However, Germany has the disadvantage of being stuck dragging corpses like Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, and Italy along, as well as losing a lot of its previous advantages because of centralized EU control based in distinctly not-so-good France.

Which property rights? Yours? The PDA next door's? The one's that is in the neighbor town? Or the property rights of the one 500km away? You know, lack of a clear set of laws that are the same across the whole country. Secondly, what are you and your gun going to do about huge company X that hires a large PDA for millions of dollars? Not much.

The ones we agree on, which, outside of a Commune, would be the same (and even a Commune would have its property respected). A huge company that hires a large PDA for millions of dollars for the purposes of eviction of property would be in big trouble if a rival PDA felt like hurting the aforementioned PDA by publicizing its blatant violation of property, or if a rival huge company in the same sector decided to weaken its competitor by making a big deal about the situation.

Problems: 1) The public might not know the details about who the "criminal" is. Bad PR is not bad PR if nobody knows it. And there is no free press that is protected by the state. 2) Bad press might be worth it in some cases if large amounts of money are involved. 3) Or even worse: the PDA is paid off. You disappear. What happens? Nothing. Because nobody knows and cares.

1) Every PDA worth its beans would make sure to look for dirt on rivals and publicize anything found on a moments notice for a gain in market share.  Also, free press exists despite, not because of, the state. 2) Bad press would be much, much worse for a company in an anarchist world, since a company would rely entirely on the good will of consumers and, unlike under our current system, would never get subsidies or support from a centralized government if it lost consumer support. 3) See 1) and 2)

No, because people sadly do not care most of the time. Or they don't know. Also, people's memories are short. Look, there have always been tons of scandals. Here in my country we had several big issues with supermarkets keeping their employees under close surveillance. Huge outrage, many newspaper articles etc. What happened? Nothing. People still buy there. Same goes for abusing workers in poor countries. All big department stores produce stuff under terrible conditions in Vietnam. Who cares? Nobody.

Now obviously you would say that those problems apparently already exist in the current system. And yes, that's true. But the difference is: if an actual crime happened, the state would intervene. In your system, there would be no state. And the customers wouldn't know...

No one cares because they have a government that exists to care for them. Why worry about what is in your food? The FDA checks for you. Who cares if workers are being abused in southeast Asia? Surely a government of some kind is doing something about it. Why be concerned about the tens or hundreds of thousands who die on government road systems each month? They aren't you, and the government is surely doing something about it. Why worry about the increase in crime? The police are going to do something about it.

The government creates complacency, and in many cases that complacency is more dangerous than being knowledgeable and worried about a more dangerous threat. Without it, people would be more cautious and aware of the world around them because they would be forced to. Whether that is a good or bad thing is entirely up to you, though if you find it bad you could always find like minded people and find a location to set up a voluntary state. After all, the real problem with the government, above all else, is that it doesn't allow competition from people who disagree with it.

Come on, individuals often win against big companies in the current system. Just look at all of those McDonald's vs Joe Plumber cases in which the latter gets a few millions because the ice in his drink was too cold.

McDonalds is a relatively small fish on the scale I am referring to, and companies like Mcdonalds dollars in assets. Those companies are practically bulletproof from any kind of attack. They are safe from most liability, they can control the legal system if they need to, they are constantly propped up by central banks if they don't control them outright, and if things go bad for them the actors in government will put aside the theatrics to overwhelmingly unite to use taxpayer or inflation created money to bail them out (unless they are caught by surprise and aren't able to rush through things fast enough, which destroyed a handful of banks in 2008-2009). You will practically never hear of Joe Plumber winning cases against HSBC or the Bank of America because, to all intents and purposes, they control the justice system. You think Mcdonalds, with around 40 billion or so in assets is huge? The JP Morgue has about 2 TRILLION in assets, or about fifty McDonalds put together.

What does insurance help if a flood contaminates an entire city with nuclear waste because a company decided to dump it into its backyard? Sure, the company might go belly up, but does that help anything? Right now we have laws for that very reason, to prevent such things from happening. I shudder at the things that could happen if you were allowed to pollute your own property as much as you wanted to.

The company would still be liable. Furthermore, nuclear power plants in flood areas beside large cities would be distinctly hard to get covered by insurance companies, and thus it would be pretty strange for a large company to even bother due to the absurd rates that the company would charge.

That means I can just blow as much carbon-dioxide into the air as I want to, great! Because, you know, it only causes problems in a few years or decades anyway. Seriously, that would be a disaster.

Assuming Global Warming is actually a problem, the loss of subsidies for oil, roads, etc would encourage alternate forms of energy, which would lower the output of CO2 which would remove the problem.

I am going to skip the next one because (A) I already covered the "no one cares" problem with the "they would care by necessity" answer, and (B) my laptop is beginning to overheat, and move on to the last problem

But again, there are no clear laws. And again, this is a very simplistic example. Environmental pollution is generally not about one company causing problems for one individual or family. It's about hundreds of corporations carelessly destroying the environment. Not everything that cause damage to the environment automatically destroys another person's property. Also, often it might be cheaper for the company to compensate the individual in question and continue polluting the area.

Well, if the individual in question is okay with being paid off then that is fine. But that individual would find it to be in his best interest to squeeze the most amount of money out of the company in question, and the company would, unless intentionally minimizing the amount of pollution, have to pay quite a lot out to property owners.

The environment, like many other things, is a complex issue, and there are many ways to look at it. Okay, my system might seem to not address environmental issues in all of their complexity, but then that is an issue of the messenger: I am honestly not sure exactly how to deal with many things, but under a free market system I don't need to because there are billions of people in the world, a large portion of whom specialize in important issues that I don't understand, who interact, each putting forward their most educated opinions and their specialties towards solving such problems in small pieces. I don't need to know how to deal with environmental issues in this anarchist world in its entirety, but then I don't know how an internal combustion engine works or how to make a house. I don't know how to make modifications for any TW games or for Paradox series or for first person shooters. I can't make a decent bowl of chile, can't speak French very well,  can't compose piano music, can't construct a nuclear power plant, can't personally organize an economic system, can't into space. But what abilities I have, for example some knowledge of economics and programming, in addition to a relatively broad (if shallow) base of knowledge mean that I can contribute on some topics in which I have deep knowledge and can know or learn enough on subjects I don't know very well so as to have at least an opinion and not get screwed over by a crank. That specialization of knowledge and ability is a result of the somewhat free market economy that we live in; you don't need to know how to make a pencil because there are thousands of people on a very long supply line that you pay to make pencils instead. The downside is that because people are divorced from consequences they sometimes don't bother for that broad base of general knowledge. But with no government, they would have to know enough general knowledge to be able to avoid being ripped off by fraudsters and pulled into stupid schemes.
Furthermore, with no government, the decisions as to who does what, would be further dispersed among a wider base of individuals, each with their own knowledge to contribute to solving problems and improving their own lives, in the process helping others as well.

It wouldn't be perfect, but nothing human ever is. It would have its own problems that we can probably never think of here, but it would be completely free of some problems that are created by default by the existence of government. Bad things would happen in it just like they do currently, things wouldn't be paradise by any means, but they would at least be better. Most importantly, no one would be forced to participate. If people didn't like life under PDAs in an anarchist society, they could make their own, go join a voluntary Commune, create their own government with like minded people. If you don't like life under the government, your options are, short of violent revolution/secession, to take what you can get or to pack up and leave for a deserted part of Africa with all of your wealth. That alone is really what makes the difference.

In "my" society, there might be environmental problems if things went bad, true. But then, they would only be there so long as people were unwilling to do anything about them, because if enough individuals cared they would be able to change things in the way they desired without necessarily needing to resort to armed thugs and robbery. Furthermore, everyone would be able to contribute to solutions in their own way. In "your" society, men in suits who claim legitimacy with the guns of their enforcers and grandly written pieces of paper would prance around and loudly make claims to be attempting to "fix" the problem. They would raise taxes, pass regulations with enough loopholes to allow their subsidised friends to get around them, create "initiatives" with other peoples' money, kidnap small time "polluters" to set examples and throw them in prison, and make little to no impact besides causing damage to the economy. Alternatively, they might actually put aside special interests and really crack down, whereupon the polluters, along with most of the money and jobs, would pack up and go to a place where the men in suits don't even bother with the pretense of representing anybody and only care about making themselves rich, like China. Voters matter far less in "democratic" societies than individuals would in an anarchist one. Look at the bailouts; A massive majority of Americans opposed them, but they still went through overwhelmingly in every house and was signed immediately by the President. Look at the debt ceiling; Again, an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose raising it, but even after electing many officials for the express purpose of opposing government growth they are merely posturing between "raising the debt ceiling and allowing the debt to go absurdly high" and "raising the debt ceiling and allowing the debt to go extremely high". I would think it is pretty clear which option has a higher chance of success.

 

Government corruption is a good thing.  It means you can pay the cops to avoid a bigger fine, or prison time, or torture and death.

On a marketplace, a corrupt PDA is pointless.  We're forced to lick the boots of the state, or pay lip service to it anyway, but there's no incentive to bother with a PDA that's corrupt.  Why spend money on something that people are going to know or at least presume is an utterly pointless gesture devoid of any meaning?  i.e. Going to a corrupt PDA for arbitration.

If governments can't keep their secrets secret - which they can't anymore - with essentially unlimited funds to spend on intelligence and counter-intelligence and black propaganda and grey propaganda, and all sorts of shit designed to uphold the maxim of 'secrecy for the sake of secrecy', then a PDA relying on voluntary customers paying real money doesn't have a hope in hell.  A PDA sells integrity, don't forget.  A government claims a monopoly over it.

I was involved in the same thread. This stuff is frustrating is hell, you will never shut them up. Society is way too complex for us to predict everything that would happen in a stateless society. But they're still caught in the statist mentality. Everything must have a plan! Everything must have a one-fits-all solution.

 

1) many people can't afford to/don't have to pay taxes because they are unemployed or extremely poor. What about them? 2) I don't know if it would be much cheaper. It's very possible that some cases would just be ignored since the potential customers can't pay enough.

1) such people generally aren't as well protected by the police, either.

Wow thank you for bringing up this point- I tend to forget about it myself. All the poor neighborhoods in New York City get little to no police response-- while the richer neighborhoods like Forest Hills, Fresh Meadows you'll see a whole lot of police cars and vans patrolling the area. They're also actually courteous and glad to give the average citizen advice for directions and things like that! wow! The poorer neighborhoods have to deal with a very different type of police officer. 

A friend of mine had his car stolen straight from his driveway- called 911- and the police precinct by him NEVER showed up- ever despite repeated calls and assurances that they were on the "way"(for 5 hours?). Eventually he had to just go there himself to file a report that didn't help for anything.