I am new so please excuse the lack of jargon.
Basically, in my understanding and opinion, any deep analysis of the foundation of freedom leads one directly to the Anarcho-capitalist position. Here is the problem I have and would appreciate input. It's not a theoretical problem but a practical one.
Why is practically the last place in the world most people would choose to live is in an area with a failed state? Why are vibrant economic communities not evolving from such areas? Why are people not flocking to these areas to "get in early" so to speak and secure the greatest return?
This is our only empiric evidence of what occurs in anarchy. According to theory, the structures necessary for civil society should just arise from the masses of people freely choosing how to live and trade. For some reason, it's just not what seems to happen.
It seems to me that the state, like other human creations, has evolved based on its utility. The Founding Fathers choose to create a state it seems because of the necessity at least of defending against other states.
The communist ideal was never and will never be realized because although it sounds good to some it simply doesn't work. I'm concerned the anarcho-capitalist idea may be the same and if actually implemented, suffer the same fate.
Suppose the United States became an Anarcho-capitalist society but the theory of security is simply wrong. It may be that a very limited state is more powerful than an area with no state and simply invades and takes over (like we did to the indians).
Let's now suppose a situation in which the above was proven to be true. Assume it is proven unequivocally that every time a group is successful in establishing an anarcho-capitalist area it is seized by a state. Assume the entire world became anarcho-capitalist but a small group formed a state and seized everything, bringing all areas again under at least limited state control.
If it were proven that it does in fact require a state to protect the very liberty that forms the basis of the anarcho-capitalist position what would be the logical and/or moral basis for the scope of that state? Is there a logical basis or does it just devolve into a matter of power?
jrt53:Why is practically the last place in the world most people would choose to live is in an area with a failed state? Why are vibrant economic communities not evolving from such areas? Why are people not flocking to these areas to "get in early" so to speak and secure the greatest return?
This is an argument from another post, that I presented.
An interesting argument is made by the Peruvian libertarian Hernado de Soto, in his book The Mystery of Capital (Basic Books, 2000). He argues that the principle problem in thirld-world countries is the lack of property right laws—maybe, more accurately, lack of the concept of private property rights. I haven't had the benefit of reading his book in its entirety, because I have been focusing on the Great Depression, but I would wholeheartedly suggest it. Thomas diLorenzo uses it as a source in the book How Capitalism Saved America; he applies it to why the original settlements in the Americas failed. Thomas diLorenzo's argument is that the lack of the concept of private property in early settlements eliminated any motivation to compete and improve the living standards of the settlers.
The book states:
"When the first settlers came to American in the early seventeenth century, the word capitalism had not yet been coined. But the most improtant ingredient of capitalism—private property—was reponsible for their very survival, and indeed for the creatio nof America. As Tom Bethell explains in The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperty Through the Ages, the American settlers originally adopted communal ownership of land and property, and as a result most of them starved to death or died of disease—a problem endured in later centuries by virtually every communist country that adopted collectivized agriculture."
It goes on, later that chapter:
"The problem was that all of the men were indentured servants who had no financial stake in the fruits of their own labor. For seven years, all that they produced was to go into a common pool to be used, supposedly, to support the colony and to generate profits for the Virginia Company. Working harder or logner was of no benefit to them, and they responded as anyone would, by shirking. Having been given free passage to the new world, these settlers were supposed to compensate the Virginia Company through their labor, so they were effectively reneging on their contracts."
de Soto's thesis is in the first chapter of his book:
"I will also show... that most of the poor already possess the assets they need to make a success in capitalism. Even in the poorest countries, the poor save. The value of savings among the poor is, in fact, immense—forty times all the foreign aid received throughout the world since 1945... But they hold these resources in defective forms: houses built on land whose ownership rights are not adequately recorded, unincorporated businesses with undefined liability, industries located where financiers and investors cannot see them. Because the rights to these possessions are not adequately documented, these assets cannot readily be turned into capital, cannot be traded, outside of narrow local circles where people know and turst each other, cannot be used as collateral for a loan, and cannot be used as a share against an investment."
There must be other, more basic, changes in regards to their economic liberty and the establishment of clear property rights—that is, property rights through recorded social contracts, which cannot be broken by the government or by any other force of tyranny.
jrt53:Why is practically the last place in the world most people would choose to live is in an area with a failed state?
Rival governments is very different from no government.
Peace
Thanks for the feedback. It just seems that the state has evolved because of its utility in terms of power. Pure communist states have failed basically due to natural selection. It seems to me that any anarcho-capitalist group is more likely to meet the fate of Tibet (goobled up by a more powerful entity that imposes its will) than to flourish independently.
History has shown that the weaker live a the mercy of the stronger. I think it is incumbent for an anarcho-capitalist to demonstrate not that security is possible but the security provided is the best possible security against other existing nation states. As much as I would like to, I just don't see it.
I didn't abandon socialist notions because they don't sound good to me. They concept of brotherly equality on the surface sounds great, at least to me. It's just that it's stupid and doesn't work. I am not yet convinced that the same is not true for anarcho-capitalist notions. A stateless society seems about as likely to work to me as a classless one.
jrt53:It seems to me that the state, like other human creations, has evolved based on its utility. The Founding Fathers choose to create a state it seems because of the necessity at least of defending against other states.
At no point did everybody get together and decide between statism and anarchy. The state exists only because it coerces its citizens to support its existence.
jrt53:Assume the entire world became anarcho-capitalist but a small group formed a state and seized everything, bringing all areas again under at least limited state control.
How exactly could this happen? I don't know much about anarcho-capitalist defense, but if the most powerful military in the world could barely keep Vietnam or Iraq under control, then I have little confidence in a state that sets itself against the entire world. Remember that a minority cannot control the majority by brute force alone; there must be a general ideological aquiescence to the legitimacy of the minority's rule, which is unlikely to be found in an anarcho-capitalist world.
jrt53:The communist ideal was never and will never be realized because although it sounds good to some it simply doesn't work. I'm concerned the anarcho-capitalist idea may be the same and if actually implemented, suffer the same fate.
Non-sequitur. Anarcho-capitalism is the opposite of communism. If communism didn't work, why would anarcho-capitalism be resigned to the same fate?
jrt53:Suppose the United States became an Anarcho-capitalist society but the theory of security is simply wrong.
There is no theory of security.
jrt53: Assume the entire world became anarcho-capitalist but a small group formed a state and seized everything, bringing all areas again under at least limited state control.
The state only exists with ideological consent.
jrt53:If it were proven that it does in fact require a state to protect the very liberty that forms the basis of the anarcho-capitalist position what would be the logical and/or moral basis for the scope of that state?
Tyranny necessary for freedom. We have always been at war with EastAsia.
I recommend you de-newbify and take up learning the ideas behind anarcho-capitalism, before writing it off as a failed never-was experiment.
jrt53:If it were proven that it does in fact require a state to protect the very liberty that forms the basis of the anarcho-capitalist position what would be the logical and/or moral basis for the scope of that state? Is there a logical basis or does it just devolve into a matter of power?
It's a matter of power. The only limit on the power of a state is the state's will, and so the incentive structure would have to ensure that the state limits itself. The problem with the U.S. constitution is that there is no incentive structure to limit the state's power, while there is an incentive structure to continue expanding it. When the senate was controlled by the subject states there was a limit on the growth of the federal state, but that balancing power was removed.
By the way the Founding Fathers did not choose to create a state, they already were states. That is what is so peculiar about America, the war of independence was a war between colonial and imperial states but did not involve the people. There is no tradition in America of opposing the state through direct confrontation, which there is in Europe.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
liberty student: jrt53:The communist ideal was never and will never be realized because although it sounds good to some it simply doesn't work. I'm concerned the anarcho-capitalist idea may be the same and if actually implemented, suffer the same fate. Non-sequitur. Anarcho-capitalism is the opposite of communism. If communism didn't work, why would anarcho-capitalism be resigned to the same fate?
It would not necessarily be resigned to the same fate. You never know until you try. I am exceptionally interested in what may happen if it doesn't though. Communism, for practical reasons, has had to modify it's theory to reflect reality. I would guess in the early days of communism, anyone advocating a free market as part of the proposition would have been viewed unfavorably.
It seems to me that less organized groups throughout history have been "deselected" so to speak, just the way state controlled economies are currently being "deselected"
I understand the argument against any justification of a state based on coercion. But, for the sake of discussion, assume a state is in fact necessary for survival. Assume, in order to survive, one must always choose between the lesser of evils in regards to the state.
Is their a coherent ideology that accepts the necessity of the existence of the state and clearly frames how to limit the power of the state without necessarily dissolving it. (Given that the most desirable situation would be no state at all).
Again, appreciate everyones feedback
Stranger: jrt53:If it were proven that it does in fact require a state to protect the very liberty that forms the basis of the anarcho-capitalist position what would be the logical and/or moral basis for the scope of that state? Is there a logical basis or does it just devolve into a matter of power? It's a matter of power. The only limit on the power of a state is the state's will, and so the incentive structure would have to ensure that the state limits itself. The problem with the U.S. constitution is that there is no incentive structure to limit the state's power, while there is an incentive structure to continue expanding it. When the senate was controlled by the subject states there was a limit on the growth of the federal state, but that balancing power was removed. By the way the Founding Fathers did not choose to create a state, they already were states. That is what is so peculiar about America, the war of independence was a war between colonial and imperial states but did not involve the people. There is no tradition in America of opposing the state through direct confrontation, which there is in Europe.
Also, read the post about microsession. Again, I am not out to debunk anarcho-capitalism. I get it. I'm just trying to imagine the next best thing. I think any realistic discussion must consider that possibility that it wouldn't work. The Iraq War began so poorly because the planners just assumed it would work because it made sense on paper.
If I were in fact a communist or socialist and placed the value of equality above the value of freedom I would have been better off from the start accepting to some degree the "evil" market. Again, suppose we do have to accept some degree of "evil" government. What should that government look like?
Thanks again for the feedback
jrt53:I think any realistic discussion must consider that possibility that it wouldn't work.
I think that's silly. Work. What is "Work"? That's so simply, and yet so value laden.
jrt53:Again, suppose we do have to accept some degree of "evil" government. What should that government look like?
Why would we accept government, when we know that government is evil? You're not making any sense. Libertarianism and anarchism are not about choosing the lesser of two evils. It is about rejecting evil outright.
jrt53:Again, I am not out to debunk anarcho-capitalism. I get it. I'm just trying to imagine the next best thing.
Why wonder about the next best thing, if you get anarcho-capitalism? It doesn't make any sense.
AnCap has issues. It doesn't promise good outcomes or perfect solutions. It certainly does not guarantee that things will be as they are without taxes or voting. Everything will change in a market system. The products we use, how we interrelate, where we live, how we live, what we eat, what work we do.
But trying to propose that any form of statism is the next best thing to liberty is like saying, "we don't have to be murdered, just raped a little".
Stranger: By the way the Founding Fathers did not choose to create a state, they already were states. That is what is so peculiar about America, the war of independence was a war between colonial and imperial states but did not involve the people. There is no tradition in America of opposing the state through direct confrontation, which there is in Europe.
Very interesting comment. I never really thought about this. Makes sense.
jrt53: Very interesting. Are there other examples of ideas for incentives to limit the size of the state besides the senate example given. (Just trying to think of what some of the options may be)
Very interesting. Are there other examples of ideas for incentives to limit the size of the state besides the senate example given. (Just trying to think of what some of the options may be)
The entire history of political thought is about this very subject.
Also, read the post about microsession. Again, I am not out to debunk anarcho-capitalism. I get it. I'm just trying to imagine the next best thing. I think any realistic discussion must consider that possibility that it wouldn't work. The Iraq War began so poorly because the planners just assumed it would work because it made sense on paper. If I were in fact a communist or socialist and placed the value of equality above the value of freedom I would have been better off from the start accepting to some degree the "evil" market. Again, suppose we do have to accept some degree of "evil" government. What should that government look like? Thanks again for the feedback
If we do have to accept some degree of government we are going to be under its thumb and our opinion about its structure will be utterly irrelevant, so why bother with the exercise?
Stranger:If we do have to accept some degree of government we are going to be under its thumb and our opinion about its structure will be utterly irrelevant, so why bother with the exercise?
I want to reiterate that I'm not out to change anyone's mind but broaden my own perspective. That said, being under the thumb of one government may be quiet different than being under the thumb of another.
The quandary I have is that I do believe that no person or group of people have the right to impose their will on someone else. I am not convinced, however that an anarcho-capitalist system could protect me from those who do not hold a similar view. Just because a person or group has no right to impose their will does not mean they won't. To me, anarcho-capitalism seems to be an ideal derived from the value of absolute freedom. However, the ideal is irrelevant if a stronger group imposes its will upon you (which in fact now the case because we all live under the thumb of a government).
Probably, as some of you before, I was floored by the clarity of the moral position of absolute freedom. The implementation is where, to me, it is quiet fuzzy. I am a practicing emergency physician and small business owner, meaning I am not a complete moron (although partial, I admit) and pay a significant amount of taxes. If I were given the choice today between completely abolishing the government of the United States or only abolishing entitlement programs, I would choose the latter.
So the point of the exercise to me is that I want to contrast the complete abolition of government to a minimal government (not necessarily even a democracy) that's only goal is to as completely as possible maintain the freedom of it's citizens. If I lived in the Swat Valley in Pakistan I would prefer some government/organization/institution strong enough to impose the value of freedom upon those attempting to impose their narrow values on me.
I guess I should have majored in political science. Questions beget only more questions. The history of man I suppose.
jrt53:The quandary I have is that I do believe that no person or group of people have the right to impose their will on someone else. I am not convinced, however that an anarcho-capitalist system could protect me from those who do not hold a similar view.
This statement shows the amount of internal conflict you're going through. I empathize.
jrt53:The implementation is where, to me, it is quiet fuzzy.
You'll never find answers to this until it occurs. There are no guarantees. When I first transitioned from minarchism to anarchism my big hangup was how it would work. I was stuck on that for at least 2 months. Who will be the cops? How will I hire cops? Who will protect me? Where will I get electricity? What will I do if the electric company goes bankrupt? My personal favorite, WHO WILL OWN THE ROADS, lol.
Eventually I realized that if absolute liberty is true and moral, then it doesn't matter who owns the roads, or who has the nukes. I'm either free, or not. I either support peace unconditionally, or I make excuses for violence. Just because I can be hurt, doesn't mean I abandon my principles.
I see a lot of people here struggling with minarchy/anarchy as I was a year ago. You have to work through it on your own. Everyone comes to this differently.
liberty student:I see a lot of people here struggling with minarchy/anarchy as I was a year ago. You have to work through it on your own. Everyone comes to this differently.
Thanks again for your input. I see now that I need to read a little more about "minarchy" and chew a little on that line of reasoning.