Political Theory

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

CaptainMurphy — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:30:49 GMT

Has anyone read this article, arguing in favor of minarchism?

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Bond.pdf

In particular, pages 36-38 raise some interesting doubts about the effectiveness of law in a society where it isn't mandated.

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

Grant — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:24:19 GMT

Here is David Friedman's opinion on tyranny arising from market anarchism: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_private_good.html

I tend to agree with him. I think its at least as unlikely as a military coup within government leading to total tyanny.

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

Stranger — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:11:28 GMT

CaptainMurphy:
How would an anarchic America have acted during WW2? If no one wanted to pay their PDA to go fight overseas, clearly there would've been no response. What if some customers of a particular PDA wanted their security to go fight the Axis but other patrons of the same PDA were opposed to it. What would happen then?

The millions of volunteers who wanted to fight the Axis could have joined one of the existing armies involved in the conflict. (Many Americans did that, but some went into the German army.)

America would have stayed out of the fight, would have had the world's powerhouse economy, would have come out of the conflict as the one country with a material standard of living beyond any other's reach.

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

Len Budney — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:17:15 GMT

How would an anarchic America have acted during WW2? If no one wanted to pay their PDA to go fight overseas, clearly there would've been no response. What if some customers of a particular PDA wanted their security to go fight the Axis but other patrons of the same PDA were opposed to it. What would happen then?

If *** were marching down Main Street, not only would PDAs respond: the men would fall-in with their rifles and muskets. Genuine self-defense doesn't require anyone to be convinced to act.

Your question is still interesting, but it assumes the less-than-obvious premise that joining the European conflict was self-evidently right--so much so, that forcing people either to fight or to finance the fighting was also the right thing to do. I would point out that Wilson doing exactly that is how we got WWII in the first place. And our involvement in Europe had nothing to do with saving the Jews, either. Roosevelt turned away Jewish refugees who ended up in the gas chambers. That doesn't eliminate the question, but I think it does eliminate any chance of Roosevelt comparing faborably with an anarcho-capitalist society.

--Len.

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

CaptainMurphy — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:04:33 GMT

How would an anarchic America have acted during WW2? If no one wanted to pay their PDA to go fight overseas, clearly there would've been no response. What if some customers of a particular PDA wanted their security to go fight the Axis but other patrons of the same PDA were opposed to it. What would happen then?

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

Len Budney — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:52:29 GMT

Seems to me this is the usual argument defenders of big government and statists always use, which is: men are evil and not very bright so we need politicians and intelectuals to live our lives for us.

As a Bible thumper myself, I accept the premise that men are evil--where "evil" approximately means, "willing to aggress for their own benefit." But, like Lew Rockwell, I would turn the argument back on the statist. If men are evil, then that includes whichever men are chosen to rule. Therefore, rulers are not to be trusted. So anarchy is the only acceptable system given that men are evil.

Somehow the argument never seems to convince anyone, though. Statists often pick Walmart as the symbol of ultimate evil. I ask them, "Which scares you more? Sam Walton, with $16 billion, or George Bush, with $2 trillion, an army, and atom bombs?" They never address the question, even. They usually just reply, "You're freaking nuts," and stop talking to me.

It seems that the logical response to this discussion is based on the fact that it is inherently to everyone´s "best interest" to follow the law.

I agree completely. If people are "evil," why do they so seldom kill and eat each other? Because their focus is "their own benefit." Although they're willing to aggress for their own benefit, it's often for their benefit not to aggress. One way of ensuring that is to make consequences for aggression: namely, self-defense and forcible restitution. A government is only a half-measure in that regard. It creates consequences for all aggression except government aggression. Any aggressor with half a brain will become a cop, a lawyer or an elected official.

--Len.

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

macsnafu — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:12:56 GMT

CaptainMurphy:
Hey all, I started a new thread but was told to post in this thread instead

You should try reading some of the other posts, instead. This particular issue is starting to come up rather regularly here.

Here's one thread that discusses the issue: http://mises.com/forums/t/1394.aspx

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

Luis Ramirez — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:36:10 GMT

Seems to me this is the usual argument defenders of big government and statists always use, which is: men are evil and not very bright so we need politicians and intelectuals to live our lives for us. It seems that the logical response to this discussion is based on the fact that it is inherently to everyone´s "best interest" to follow the law. I can´t see how people making wrong choices in an ethically questionnable manner has anything to do with the success or failure of anarcho-capitalism.

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

JAlanKatz — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:18:58 GMT

CaptainMurphy:
I was reading a book online arguing in favor of privatizing all industries, including security. Even though security was specifically addressed, I am not entirely satisfied with the authors argument. I'm just trying to play this out in my head.. say security was privatized. Me and my neighbor employ different security firms to guard our homes. I pay my security force to go steal my neighbors lawn mower, and they do it. With every industry being privatized, who will hold me accountable for breaking the law? He may try and take me to court, but what would compel me to go? He could only use his security firm, but if mine is bigger (say I make more money and pay my guys more) there is nothing he can do. It would boil down to turf warfare with the rich being able to do anything they want, steal property, breach contracts, with no punishment because they make more money. And this is not even getting into the trial complications if I for some reason did decide to be nice about it. He would hire his court system, but I could hire my own and pay them extra to rule in my favor. With no overarching court to be given power, the system would collapse.

So, what are we to do today when we have a complaint against the government, or they present charges against us? Unlike your scenario, the security forces and the court system are all entirely owned by one party.

If you want your security force to do unconscionable things, you'd better pay them a lot, since they'll have few other customers. You're also going to be hiring unsavory characters, so don't be surprised if you get hurt in the end. If you do have enough money to outright buy a large army and use it, sure, you can do damage. The other security forces will see you for the threat that you are, so your force has to be strong enough to overcome them, but assuming that, yes, you can get away with murder. Now, tell me someone with that kind of money and those kinds of desires can't get away with them in the presence of a government? He could raise an army larger than the central one, or, much more likely, he'd just use the money to run for office.

For any system, the comparison is not system A vs. utopia. The comparison is system A versus system B - which in this case is a monopoly.

What you're describing, by the way, is a lot like the way our country behaves internationally. Do you think we should eliminate armies and just have one international protective service, to prevent that kind of thing?

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

A-R — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:03:40 GMT

CaptainMurphy:
Another thing I was thinking about- who would print the money without government? Wouldn't various firms be able to print their own currencies, but how would the exchange rate work? Would this not be regressing toward a barter system?

Now that's an easy one. Gold has been the international standard money for thousands of years (and continues to be today, for those smart enough to still hold some). Of course, anyone could issue paper or digital claims to gold or any other commodity, but those claims will be worth as much as they're worth. All depends on the reputation of the issuer. Probably just a very few reputable firms would dominate this market.

The current system which forces individuals to use claims to a specific territorial government's unbacked debt as "money" certainly qualifies as regression towards a barter system, imho!

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

CaptainMurphy — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:57:39 GMT

Yea, it definitely happens under government as well..

Another thing I was thinking about- who would print the money without government? Wouldn't various firms be able to print their own currencies, but how would the exchange rate work? Would this not be regressing toward a barter system?

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

Fephisto — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:19:26 GMT

I haven't read all of the previous replies here, but I wanted to reply to CaptainMurphy with a true story:

My father came from Argentina. His father did the taxes for, and generally helped out, a rich friend of his who owned a large farm/ranch, time and time again. This occurred during the time of the U.S. embargo against the Soviet Union, so Argentina was having a hay-day for its new-found consumers, and were generally spend-happy. My grandfather's friend decided to use this new-found wealth to start a new business, and noted that Buenos Aires only really had one garbage disposal business.

So, without really doing his homework (the local mafia controlled the garbage business), he haphazardly decided to start up a garbage business, and started to go through the legal-work. A couple of days later, he started getting threatening phone-calls for him to stop and get out while he could. Ignoring this, he bought 3 dump-trucks, and the next day found them destroyed and in flames, and was greeted by an almost stereotypical man in a black suit who warned him for the last time.

Of course, he tried to get the police to go after these guys, but they were already bribed, there was nothing he could do; and he then did the one smart thing he could do: he left it at that.

The moral of the story that I'm trying to propose here is the following: the exact same worries you're talking about can already occur today, only it's a lot easier today! We have to bribe a single police station, or better yet, buy a lobbyist.

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

CaptainMurphy — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:28:23 GMT

Hey all, I started a new thread but was told to post in this thread instead. Here is what I wrote:

I was reading a book online arguing in favor of privatizing all industries, including security. Even though security was specifically addressed, I am not entirely satisfied with the authors argument. I'm just trying to play this out in my head.. say security was privatized. Me and my neighbor employ different security firms to guard our homes. I pay my security force to go steal my neighbors lawn mower, and they do it. With every industry being privatized, who will hold me accountable for breaking the law? He may try and take me to court, but what would compel me to go? He could only use his security firm, but if mine is bigger (say I make more money and pay my guys more) there is nothing he can do. It would boil down to turf warfare with the rich being able to do anything they want, steal property, breach contracts, with no punishment because they make more money. And this is not even getting into the trial complications if I for some reason did decide to be nice about it. He would hire his court system, but I could hire my own and pay them extra to rule in my favor. With no overarching court to be given power, the system would collapse.

Please critique...

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

darcgun — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:54:52 GMT

miksirhc:

With any good or service on the free market, the good or service will be successful when it satisfies the needs of the consumer. If courts were brought into the free market, they will respect property if and only if the consumers of the court respect property. However, the very fact that they are in a court (in the majority of the times) means that one of the parties disrespects private property anyway.

People will act rationally and in their own self-interest. Often times, it will be in their interest to force an exchange; to increase their utility at the expense of another. Anarcho-Capitalism assumes that everybody, including the criminals, want justice. However, they do not. They simply act in their own best interest.

Yes, the bulk do want justice. Even in the current statist model, people desire protection against those who may harm them. Laws against stealing protect property that one has worked hard to attain. Laws against rape safeguard a woman's (or even man's in some cases) right to bodily integrity. How then can one say that people don't want justice?

In the statist model, such legislation is seen as ethical, and thus necessary but laws in an anarcho-capitalist framework (at least in Friedman's paradigm) would also be based on public demand. Since human nature is unlikely to radically change in a free society, then people still wouldn't like to be stolen from or raped.

Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism will Fail

Grant — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:08:25 GMT

Game theory is just a descriptive tool; it can easily be applied poorly. I'm not familiar with its use in describing collusion under anarchy, though I don't see why PDAs would have any different incentives than states in this regard. Surely there is always the threat of one PDA conquering all others, but again this threat always exists under any system. I'm skeptical that any games have been modeled which accurately describe our present situation of government, let alone a theoretical anarchy.

I think one important thing is to remember that PDAs can be democratic institutions, similar to customer-owned firms. If people are afraid of tyranny, they would undoubtedly not patronize autocratic PDAs. Democracies tend to make pretty poor decisions, but the hedge against tyranny might be worth it. Of course, a coup is still possible, but thats always the case, even in the current US government.

The Internet is probably the closest example to market anarchism (the US government only interferes a bit in with top-level domain names, I think), but it isn't reality. "Property rights" are a lot easier to enforce on the Internet, but fraud is much harder. Even still, many instutions on the Internet effectively operate under anarchy.

My opinion might be a little over-simplified: Banks, high worker productivity and the huge costs of military occupations have more or less made banditry a worthless occupation (and statism without legitimacy is just banditry). Stealing something valuable is rarely worth the risk, and in a free market the opportunities to make money honestly would be more common. In order to steal large sums of money you'd need to rob a bank, commit a cyber crime or a massive fraud. Government can't prevent these things any better than private individuals can. Finally, outright occupation and extortion is extremely expensive; just look at the resources used to hold Baghdad. I think the only real fear under anarchy is a PDA legitimizing itself as a state in the eyes of its customers (turned taxpayers). I don't know if there is any way to guard against that, although that might be as unlikely as the US re-instating aristocracy and crowning the Clintons. We can't imagine worshiping the Clintons as God's voice on Earth, can we? Why should an anarchist society regress into statism? No state can possible survive without being legitimized in the eyes of its citizens.

Maybe I am simplifying things too much, but I see peaceful culture as spreading for a very simple reason: Gains from trade are increasing, while gains from violence are not.

Here is an interesting article (which I haven't read): http://www.peterleeson.com/Trading_with_Bandits.pdf