Political Theory

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

jmorris84 — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:02:57 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:

It was not my intention to equate anarchy with lawlessness - rather, my concern is that anarchy will result in a period of lawlessness before the appropriate market systems are set up. Market forces can operate quickly, but they are not instantaneous, and it seems silly to cut out the safety net before the floor is finished.

This sounds similar to the necessity of a recession after a government induced boom and peoples excuses to not allow the market to correct itself. Look, just because the medicine tastes bad doesn't mean you shouldn't swallow it if it is going to make you feel better in the long run.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Joe — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:30:50 GMT

Sage:

Aster_Lacnala:
More and more as I read people's views on this site, I realize that some consequences of ancap are morally abhorrent to me. So while I view people's right to their property as a high moral principle, I do not view it as the HIGHEST moral principle. I'd love to find a way to support the government without taxation, or for someone to find a way to solve problems entirely without a government. Until such is possible... yes, I'm willing to accept a State which takes a little of everyone's money in order to secure the principles I see as more important. Does that make me an imperfect Libertarian? I'm okay with that.

I too would reject anarchy if it had massively horrendous consequences. But I see no reason to think that it does. Indeed, I think market anarchism is the best possible society for both moral and consequentialist reasons.

Market anarchism= you get to sell your cake, and eat it too

I would probably say that I am an anarchist more for moral reasons, but it certainly doesn hurt that everything the gov't does makes things worse. Or maybe I should say, it certainly does hurt, and thats why its even more reason to be an anarchist.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Sage — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:24:25 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
More and more as I read people's views on this site, I realize that some consequences of ancap are morally abhorrent to me. So while I view people's right to their property as a high moral principle, I do not view it as the HIGHEST moral principle. I'd love to find a way to support the government without taxation, or for someone to find a way to solve problems entirely without a government. Until such is possible... yes, I'm willing to accept a State which takes a little of everyone's money in order to secure the principles I see as more important. Does that make me an imperfect Libertarian? I'm okay with that.

I too would reject anarchy if it had massively horrendous consequences. But I see no reason to think that it does. Indeed, I think market anarchism is the best possible society for both moral and consequentialist reasons.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Aster_Lacnala — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:23:10 GMT

One would presume that a Minarchy would not jail you for victimless crimes. As for the other...

More and more as I read people's views on this site, I realize that some consequences of ancap are morally abhorrent to me. So while I view people's right to their property as a high moral principle, I do not view it as the HIGHEST moral principle. I'd love to find a way to support the government without taxation, or for someone to find a way to solve problems entirely without a government. Until such is possible... yes, I'm willing to accept a State which takes a little of everyone's money in order to secure the principles I see as more important. Does that make me an imperfect Libertarian? I'm okay with that.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:53:51 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
, such as universal securing of basic rights and justice.

like the right to 100% of your property and to not be jailed for victimless crimes?

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Justin Spahr-Summers — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:39:47 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
Admittedly, I knew it wasn't the greatest example to make my point, but I'm sleepy and can't think of another one. :D That said, it does seem to introduce this: if private education cannot be made cheap enough to compete with the nearly free public education system, then wouldn't security fall to the same problem?

But the problem is that public education is not free or even "nearly free." The costs are just hidden under layers upon layers of bloated bureaucracy and taxpaying.

Aster_Lacnala:
If we dismantle the public education system, there will be those who cannot afford an education at all. They may not even be able to improve their earning power by learning new skills. Scholarships will probably be offered by wealthy people, based on who the donor feels is deserving, but many will simply miss out. That becomes an even bigger problem, because it is the poor and poorly educated who are most likely to embrace socialist doctrines - too many people buying into some rhetoric, and you have the State all over again.

The same applies if we dismantle the police. There will be those unable to afford security, forced to fight for their rights on their own. These will be the people victimized by groups, and unable to get justice. Again, these people would be likely to embrace anybody who offers them a "better life", all they need to do is obey...

Does any of this give someone the moral right to extort payments for socialized schooling or defense?

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:38:01 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:

That said, it does seem to introduce this: if private education cannot be made cheap enough to compete with the nearly free public education system, then wouldn't security fall to the same problem?

This is the exact problem I am proposing.

If we dismantle the public education system, there will be those who cannot afford an education at all. They may not even be able to improve their earning power by learning new skills.

Well, learning skills should not be conflated with the education received at public schools. It should be considered that the cost of private education would be substantially reduced in a free market, and it should also be considered that demand for an intellectual education would probably be quite limited. The current "intellectual education" system, known as the public school system, overly emphasizes the role of general education. In Spain, for example, a large portion of the population learns a skill and utilizes it to make a living. This type of education has been marginalized by the State, in the United States.

We are risking turning this thread into one of education, so I will stop here and instead pick up with the topic of private security.

The same applies if we dismantle the police.

No, it does not—at least, not with the consequences you suggest would occur. The demand for protection is infinite. One can provide that protection himself, or he could outsource it. There's no reason why an individual could not provide his own security—there would be no laws making certain defensive techniques illegal (such as laws which protect the criminal if they damage themselves during a forced entry, or are shot or even killed). There is no reason why communities could not collude to donate money into a common pool of savings, as to pay for collective protection (such communities exist for other services which are not paid for by the government, already). The possibilities are endless.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Aster_Lacnala — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:22:26 GMT

Sage:

Hence the minarchist cannot use "how would X work" questions as an objection to anarchy. Instead they must give reasons to show that anarchy is conceptually impossible, or that the argument against monopoly does not apply to the legal system.

I guess my argument runs, then, that the arguments against monopoly do not apply to the legal system, because there are situations that a monopolistic legal system can handle that a free-market one cannot, such as universal securing of basic rights and justice.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Aster_Lacnala — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:09:23 GMT

Admittedly, I knew it wasn't the greatest example to make my point, but I'm sleepy and can't think of another one. :D That said, it does seem to introduce this: if private education cannot be made cheap enough to compete with the nearly free public education system, then wouldn't security fall to the same problem?

If we dismantle the public education system, there will be those who cannot afford an education at all. They may not even be able to improve their earning power by learning new skills. Scholarships will probably be offered by wealthy people, based on who the donor feels is deserving, but many will simply miss out. That becomes an even bigger problem, because it is the poor and poorly educated who are most likely to embrace socialist doctrines - too many people buying into some rhetoric, and you have the State all over again.

The same applies if we dismantle the police. There will be those unable to afford security, forced to fight for their rights on their own. These will be the people victimized by groups, and unable to get justice. Again, these people would be likely to embrace anybody who offers them a "better life", all they need to do is obey...

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:31:05 GMT

Actually, that is a very telling example. A similar example would be a universal healthcare system, and how it crowds out private healthcare providers. The fact of the matter is that the costs of public education (or universal healthcare) is not equally distributed. The costs are not even proportionally distributed. A large number of persons are receiving the benefits of public education for a cost lower than getting it through a private education. The costs of public education are consistently driven upwards, but they are still largely paid for by a small group of wealthier taxpayers. It is impossible for private education providers to enter the market because if they were to make their product competitive in price in relation to the costs of public education, it would effectively have to come free of charge. Efficient and cheap private education is driven off the market by the provision of public education.

The result is something similar to the previous example of private security firms. For education, this complemental service is provided through the internet. The internet privately provides a great deal of educational resources. But, it has not and cannot replace schooling. The service of schooling has been crowded out by the State.

There are, of course, exceptions, but these exceptions are reserved for those who can afford the high costs associated with a relatively large supply (there are many unemployed educators looking to provide a private education for a willing customer) and a relatively low demand.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Aster_Lacnala — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:24:43 GMT

Right now, the private education system in the U.S. cannot provide cheap, quality education. The public school system, though far less effective, is not superfluous. Yet there is nothing stopping some entrepreneur from replacing it if they can find a cheaper way of doing private education. None have, yet. Does it make it more difficult to get customers because of the public option? Sure it does. Does it make it impossible? No.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:57:59 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:

No, I'm saying it could eventually become superfluous under a minarchy, thus establishing that anarchy isn't needed to develop these systems.

But, you conceded that the public police force did not fulfill the demand that private sector security forces do. It follows that they are superfluous. Either they are superfluous, or they necessarily crowd out the development of private security forces which fulfill their job.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Aster_Lacnala — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:26:24 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Then you agree that the public security force is superfluous and unnecessary, while the protection for private property rights was immediately provided by the market?

No, I'm saying it could eventually become superfluous under a minarchy, thus establishing that anarchy isn't needed to develop these systems.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Solid_Choke — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:09:45 GMT

I honestly don't know how the tooth brush industry works, but I am able to buy a tooth brush all the same. I suppose if the government took over the tooth brush industry, I couldn't tell statists how the tooth brush industry would work if it was demonopolized. I guess I fail as an anarchist.

Re: Anarchism and the Burden of Proof

Sage — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:40:24 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
It almost seems to me that anarchists are working under a fallacy as well - no government system they can think of will bring about the desired result, therefore no government system ever can.

I don't think so. The crucial difference is that government needs to create a blueprint because they are centrally planning a monopoly, whereas for the market, dispersed knowledge is coordinated through the price system, and no monolithic blueprint is necessary.

Aster_Lacnala:
However, laws are not merely economic; they are an attempt to apply a standard of morality to a society.

Very true, and I do not deny the legal system has a noneconomic aspect. But the legal system does have an economic aspect, and this aspect can be analyzed by economics: a monopoly legal system is still a monopoly, and monopolies are plagued by informational and incentival problems.

Aster_Lacnala:
However, to bring down the State before they do so would set up a lawless society. It would certainly provide motivation to the entrepreneurs! The costs, however, are too high... and if there is some reason we do not yet see that disables entrepreneurs from solving the problem, we are screwed.

I agree, anarchism would be much less desirable if it required first destroying the State and then establishing an anarchist legal system.

However, I see no reason to think that this strategy is necessary. On the contrary, the best strategy is one of “building new institutions within the shell of the old” and education, rather than overnight revolution. Moreover, since the State cannot be destroyed unless there are private protection agencies actively outcompeting it, I see little possibility of a "legal system vacuum."

Aster_Lacnala:
Minarchists should not think of the situations they create as proof of anarchy's inability to operate. However, they do provide food for thought for potential entrepreneurs to start working on ways to solve the problem before it comes up, rather than after it is needed.

I agree. I definitely don't think we should discourage entrepreneurial speculation and the creation of business plans (since these are necessary for bringing about an anarchist society). My point was that we need to recognize the limited justificatory status of these speculations; that is, that even if minarchists reject them, they aren't justified in rejecting anarchism.