Political Theory

Re: international relationships

hayekianxyz — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:51:54 GMT

sir_skiner:
right. but still it's in his interest to do so, and it is in interest of russian state. that makes coalition wich is interested in bringing in the state rules over anarchy.

Not necessarily, if he values freedom more than selling his product it wouldn't be in his interest to form a new state, although it seems to me that the issue his has changed. The main point is that everybody else would have an interest in making sure that he didn't manage to force another state upon them, and which a free market in arms they'd have the means to do so.

sir_skiner:
whith many diffrent traders having similar goals it makes impossible to protect freedom.

No it's not, the point is the free market incentivises individuals to work together and to avoid conflict, naturally there will be some people who don't act in such a manner and they will be taken care of.

Re: international relationships

sir_skiner — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:26:28 GMT

right. but still it's in his interest to do so, and it is in interest of russian state. that makes coalition wich is interested in bringing in the state rules over anarchy. whith many diffrent traders having similar goals it makes impossible to protect freedom. it's not sufficient to take out the state control over some teritory to avoid patolgical relations between well connected enterprouers with state rigime and protectionism, since it considers only home market. or am i missing somethig?

Re: international relationships

hayekianxyz — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:14:13 GMT

That's sort of the whole point of the thing, he can't force the rest of the population to use Russian oil for his own benefit. Whereas with the state (presuming he was well connected of course) he could lobby the government to force everybody to use Russian oil (therefore making them worse off, since if that wasn't the case they'd be using it anyway) for his benefit.

Ultimately if the people did value the service of him selling vodka to the Russians (for whatever reason) they would buy Russian oil voluntarily.

Re: international relationships

sir_skiner — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:00:38 GMT

wouldn't it be politics?

anyway, my english is poor, so it's hard for me to handle so complex matter. here's an simple example for a closer look:

i sell something, vodka for instance, to Russia. it is good and cheap so russians prefer it over other russian alcohols. russian gov,, to protect native production of vodka, entacts embargo on my products. i can still make some nagotiating with russian state throgh my own contact network, or whith a lobby of libertarians trading on russian market, or i can hire some agency to take care the problem. but what if russian state say: ok, dudes, we will let you trade your vodka on our teritory if all libertarians will buy our oil. it is clear that i can't guarantee that - libertarians responsives only for themselfs. i can use russian oil, but i can't force my neighbours to do the same if they freely don't want to. but the state can (with duty taxation policy). if so, how could this be solved?

and other thing: if privates can't deal with states on the same rules like other states, wouldn't it undermine their position and attract states to make kind of cartel agreement against them to eliminate them?

Re: international relationships

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:36:26 GMT

I think what he means is, how would PDAs deal with states? Considering protection firms (not just PDAs) would be linked by a multitude of contractual networks, I don't think they'd have any problem coordinating to deal with states as the need arose.

-Jon

Re: international relationships

hayekianxyz — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:24:02 GMT

sir_skiner:
right? now, in anarchy, ther are multiple diffrent privat entities

I assume you mean PDAs when you say this? If so they don't own property in the sense that the state does, they're merely delegated the task of protecting other people's property.

Since everybody would fully own their own property (assuming it has been legitimately acquired) they would be free to contract with other individuals (also full owners of their property) to "execute those acts". I don't really understand what you're saying though, so if perhaps you rephrased it more clearly and gave an example.

Re: international relationships

sir_skiner — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:09:36 GMT

yes, they would, i know that. but how would they? in a state coutry the state is single entity which all legal acts reffers to. then, state executes this agreements on its teritory through monopolized violance. right? now, in anarchy, ther are multiple diffrent privat entities whith means to execute those acts only on its property.

Re: international relationships

hayekianxyz — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:14:28 GMT

The "anarcho capitalist society" wouldn't do anything, individual entrepreneurs within the voluntaryist society would.

international relationships

sir_skiner — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:07:44 GMT

how anarchocapitalistic society could maintain relations with nation states for their crutial needs?