Political Theory

Re: Anarchy Defined

Sieben — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:36:34 GMT

z1235:
You didn't have to dig that hard to find an example of occupation and collaborators with which the occupiers are more than happy to "coexist". I'm sorry but it's ridiculous to persist in using this as evidence for your position.

Its the only one I could thing of right off hand... and really doesn't it disprove your collusive territorial monopoly thesis?

z1235:
This is actually my position, and I don't see how it helps yours.

Because people don't agree to unenforceable contracts. You admit that in the first place, there *can* be such a thing as a free market in security right? Where contracts are enforceable and you can change security providers etc etc... The minarchist prediction is that this free market would form a monopoly, which would render previously enforceable contracts unenforceable. Since people don't agree to unenforceable contracts, this can't happen.

z1235:
Where is that huge demand today? I assume you are aware that most people on this planet live under un-enforcable security "contracts" with power (force) monopolies.

[edit: didn't see this last night] Well there's the fact that people still have to pay private security to protect them, since the cops don't perform their hobbesian function. As far as a demand to be protected from the state, I think it exists but practically everyone thinks they're benefitting from the state's existence. Poor people think they are, rich people think they are... but there are plenty of black markets for things the state illegalizes/taxes too heavily (drugs, cigarettes, media). You don't have to buy tanks to protect yourself from the intrusion of the state.

z1235:
The distinction also stands in practice as there is no evidence of a free (non-monopolist) market in power (force) while there are plenty of examples of free markets in all other goods/services through history and across mankind.

Your framework is all wrong on this issue. See the last part of my previous post.

Re: Anarchy Defined

z1235 — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:28:07 GMT

Sieben:
We know syria helped faction A win against faction B in lebanon. Afterwards, faction A and syria coexisted in tension, but did not consolidate power. This is the whole point: Two providers of security/force can coexist in the same territory without successfully consolidating power.

You didn't have to dig that hard to find an example for an occupation and collaborators with which the occupiers are more than happy to "coexist". I'm sorry but it's ridiculous to persist in using this as evidence for your position.

Sieben:
Consumers cant enforce contracts with a monopoly security provider.

I agree. The fact that power (force) markets are different from all other goods/services is reflected in the fact that the contracts for power (force) "services" are also different from contracts for all other goods services. This is actually my position, and I don't see how it helps yours.

Sieben:
There would arise a huge demand for enforceable contracts, causing the divinely augmented PDA to shrink and others to grow until zeus jr. could be contained.

Where is that huge demand today? I assume you are aware that most people on this planet live under un-enforcable security "contracts" with power (force) monopolies.

Sieben:
So, lacking a principled rebuttal, you admit that the distinction is bunk in theory, while in practice it does not appear to hold up.

The distinction stands in theory: The more power (force) a provider has, the higher the "price" the customer pays. It's quite a peculiar "good/service" that way -- a higher "supply" of something resulting in a higher "price" to the consumer.

The distinction also stands in practice as there is no evidence of a free (non-monopolist) market in power (force) while there are plenty of examples of free markets in all other goods/services through history and across mankind.

Re: Anarchy Defined

liberty student — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 03:46:10 GMT

E. R. Olovetto:
Why even call the ideology an-cap if it is really an-cap-statism-morachism-socialism-syndicalism-etc.?

Because capitalism was used in lieu of market. Voluntary socialism can only emerge under a capitalistic (market based) order, not from a socialistic one.

I prefer the terms market anarchism and voluntarism myself. They are much less ambiguous.

Re: Anarchy Defined

Sieben — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 03:28:34 GMT

z1235:
in October 1990 Syrian forces took the presidential palace at Baabda by storm

Yes. We know syria helped faction A win against faction B in lebanon. Afterwards, faction A and syria coexisted in tension, but did not consolidate power. This is the whole point: Two providers of security/force can coexist in the same territory without successfully consolidating power.

z1235:
Can you please remind me of it quickly? I honestly forgot what it was about.

Consumers cant enforce contracts with a monopoly security provider. If one day, god imbued the head of some PDA with zapping powers, all his contracts would become unenforceable (bad). There would arise a huge demand for enforceable contracts, causing the divinely augmented PDA to shrink and others to grow until zeus jr. could be contained.

z1235:
And yet, there are free (non-monopolist) markets in water, and none in power (force). Pizza can also be used aggressively to gain leverage against hungry customers.

So, lacking a principled rebuttal, you admit that the distinction is bunk in theory, while in practice it does not appear to hold up. Well you need theory. So here we go.

If states provide for security, no one else is going to double their efforts. No private company is going to build black hawks to try to fight off al qeada. They're already doing it. However the state is not presently engaged in trying to monopolize food markets. Actually it has been in communist countries, so i suppose its a good compare and contrast between state and private provision of inelastically high demand goods.

You constantly reject examples given by nir and ERO of significant private security in statist contexts, on the grounds that the state will smack them around if they get out of line. But couldn't you argue that if the STATE got out of line public dissent would smack the state around? So really what rules are the IDEAS of society, not particular institutions. Most people think that self defense and community security are okay, while attacking competitors isn't.

Also, privateers are incredibly badass and totally pwned the navies of britain/usa/canada. 700 years of rock and roll resitution and non aggression. Customary law yus and et cetera.

[EDIT: I also challenge the idea that the state really could smack around our current PDAs. The state can't beat rag tag drug gangs. What makes you think they can beat professional security? Okay maybe the dude who takes the midnight shift at woolworth's isn't duke nukem... but still. What makes you think the public would let the state attack defensive PDAs? There's a very strong, albeit warped, general consensus that you don't attack innocent people]

Re: Anarchy Defined

z1235 — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:52:44 GMT

Sieben:
After the civil war, syria stuck around, and two governments occupied the same territory. The new lebanese government and the syrian government. ...You do not understand the significance of this example?

From wiki:

"The Syrian military remained in Lebanon; after a successful campaign against the Lebanese Forces militia who had controlled Beirut port, Aoun, now with massive popular support in his East Beirut enclave, declared a "War of Liberation" against the Syrian forces. Fighting began on 14 March 1989. Casualties among civilians on both sides from indiscriminate artillery bombardments across the front line were numerous. Aoun initially received a greater degree of international support than el-Hoss, but this ended abruptly with the American build-up for war with Iraq over Kuwait. Aoun had received considerable support from the Iraqi government, anxious to weaken the rival Baathist regime in Damascus;^{[citation needed]} in October 1990 Syrian forces took the presidential palace at Baabda by storm. Aoun took refuge in the French embassy and was later exiled from Lebanon to France. Circumstances surrounding his exile are controversial; his apprehension and exile are variously attributed to Syrian forces, Israeli Defense Forces, Shiite militias, and the Lebanese Forces militia of Samir Geagea."

If you want I can provide you with some other war-ridden ethnically mixed tinderboxes to add to your evidence database.

Sieben:
Also, I would love to hear a rebuttal to my "non enforceable contract" thesis, which is what nir is roughly hitting on.

Can you please remind me of it quickly? I honestly forgot what it was about.

Sieben:
As well as the guns/water comparison, since both can be used aggressively to gain leverage against consumers.

And yet, there are free (non-monopolist) markets in water, and none in power (force). Pizza can also be used aggressively to gain leverage against hungry customers.

Re: Anarchy Defined

E. R. Olovetto — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:46:07 GMT

The second one is not necessarily the anarcho-capitalist position. Only thick anarcho-capitalists would support the second (some thin would not)

So called "thick libertarians" conflate political philosophy with legal philosophy.

Being an anarcho-capitalist doesn't even contradict localized socialist economic systems or sharia legal arrangements (as long as they are entered into voluntarily).

Change "voluntarist" for "anarcho-capitalist" and I agree. An-cap to me means someone who prefers anarchy and capitalism, although they could be simultaneously a voluntarist like me. Why even call the ideology an-cap if it is really an-cap-statism-morachism-socialism-syndicalism-etc.?

Re: Anarchy Defined

Solid_Choke — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:07:18 GMT

A libertarian anarchist (or anarcho-capitalist) is therefore in favor of two quite seperate things: "I want laws to be produced by the market" and "I want to live under libertarian laws".

The second one is not necessarily the anarcho-capitalist position. Only thick anarcho-capitalists would support the second (some thin would not). Being an anarcho-capitalist doesn't even contradict localized socialist economic systems or sharia legal arrangements (as long as they are entered into voluntarily).

Re: Anarchy Defined

Graham Wright — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:06:13 GMT

Anarchy is absence of government. Government is a territorial monopolist producer of law. Anarchy is therefore a free market in law.

The laws produced under free market conditions are, of course, going to be whatever laws consumers demand. There are good reasons to believe these will be largely libertarian. Capitalism is the economic system that results from having libertarian laws.

A libertarian anarchist (or anarcho-capitalist) is therefore in favor of two quite seperate things: "I want laws to be produced by the market" and "I want to live under libertarian laws".

Re: Anarchy Defined

liberty student — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:35:39 GMT

Travlyr:
That's why I'm here to learn. I find that few really know or can explain theft in an anarcho-capitalist society.

I'm happy you are here to learn. There are a lot of people all trying to learn, so it is a good environment for that.

Travlyr:
Anarchy is defined in the online etymology dictionary as "rulerless." No one to enforce rules.

Being ruled and enforcing rules are not the same thing. I think this may be the part of the discussion we're hung up on.

Travlyr:
Travlyr:
The state should provide laws protecting my property, and the state should provide rulers (a sheriff) to capture those who violate the rights of others.

liberty student:
The state can do all of those things, but to expect me to pay for the same state you want, is not freedom.

Right. This is the tough question. I wish I had an answer besides taxation.

While I would agree to a state protecting my property rights, I do not agree to any other function of the state.

I will (and many other Austrians as well) argue for the market. We can all choose the sort of laws and defense and enforcement, at costs we approve of, voluntarily. Taxation is really just theft, and as you indicated, it's not a very good solution.

Wrt to the state protecting your property rights, that is because it is YOUR consent to give to the state to do so, and it is YOUR consent for it to not do other things. This is a fundamentally sound libertarian or voluntarist position. The state can only do with your property, what you consent to it doing, and you reserve the right to withhold consent, if a state wants to be legitimate in your eyes.

Travlyr:
Right, yet protection of property rights is fundamental to liberty. Do you have a different setup, law or protection that is fundamental to liberty?

Well, I start with this premise. I can't defend property rights by violating property rights. So right off the bat, the state is disqualified. So now, I have property rights, but no way to defend them. My next step is to either defend them myself, or to contract someone (voluntarily, thus a consentual use of my property) to do it for me. This can be a bodyguard. It can be a security agency. It can be a lawyer.

It is someone of my choosing, acting in a manner I consent to, as far as I can consent, which is only with my property and property rights, not yours. This is the market solution.

Travlyr:
Agreed. However, if a maniac does violate someone's property (let's say rape), shouldn't society help her find the perpetrater and get restitution?

If she asks for help, absolutely. A civil society cannot last if it allows violations of life and liberty.

But remember, a monopoly state (the only provider of law and protection in a geographical area) violates life and liberty, before it can push back against the violations of others.

Re: Anarchy Defined

Travlyr — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:03:42 GMT

Travlyr:
This is why I argue for property rights... including the right to life.

liberty student:
This is not as clear cut as you may believe it to be.

That's why I'm here to learn. I find that few really know or can explain theft in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Travlyr:
And it is why anarchy fails (no one to enforce the rules).

liberty student:
If you have someone enforcing rules without consent, you do not have property rights.

Right.

liberty student:
If you have someone enforcing rules with consent, that is anarchy.

Anarchy is defined in the online etymology dictionary as "rulerless." No one to enforce rules.

Travlyr:
The state should provide laws protecting my property, and the state should provide rulers (a sheriff) to capture those who violate the rights of others.

liberty student:
The state can do all of those things, but to expect me to pay for the same state you want, is not freedom.

Right. This is the tough question. I wish I had an answer besides taxation.

While I would agree to a state protecting my property rights, I do not agree to any other function of the state.

liberty student:
Maybe I want a different setup, different laws, different forms of protection.

Right, yet protection of property rights is fundamental to liberty. Do you have a different setup, law or protection that is fundamental to liberty?

liberty student:
It is my "right" to choose how I will defend myself and my property or to not defend it at all.

Agreed. However, if a maniac does violate someone's property (let's say rape), shouldn't society help her find the perpetrater and get restitution?

Re: Anarchy Defined

The Late Andrew Ryan — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:23:25 GMT

"The problem with identifying anarchy with anarcho-capitalism is that it makes it seem like one naively believes that simply eliminating government will necessarily bring about a libertarian society."

Q For T

Re: Anarchy Defined

Solid_Choke — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:55:25 GMT

The problem with identifying anarchy with anarcho-capitalism is that it makes it seem like one naively believes that simply eliminating government will necessarily bring about a libertarian society.

Anything I can think of that would stand a decent chance of eliminating government involves having alternative institutions already in place in some form to a large degree. The state will probably maintain its legitimacy in the minds of the people until people can observe all the things they now believe can only be done by the state being taken care of voluntarily. So if people see how private schooling works in one country, private courts and law enforcement (perhaps on a seastead), private money (perhaps on the internet), etc... When people can see that all the components of a free society "work" in isolation and so will probably work in conjuntion, the idea that the state is necessary will start to loose its common sense appeal. Only then would I expect to see the dismantling of the state.

Worrying about what would happen if anarchism became common sense tomorrow, seems to me, to be a silly thing to do. I don't think worrying about what would happen if we had access to a button that would immediately disolve government is worth our effort.

Re: Anarchy Defined

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:30:53 GMT

The problem with identifying anarchy with anarcho-capitalism is that it makes it seem like one naively believes that simply eliminating government will necessarily bring about a libertarian society.

Re: Anarchy Defined

Travlyr — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:56:38 GMT

Re: Anarchy Defined

Solid_Choke — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:26:46 GMT

Anarchy is the absence of a monopoly in governance. In essence, a free market.