reed07 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 If people did not use force upon each other then the society would be utopias. The problem is that there are people who use force. Because of this, security-oriented establishments need to be created to apply force back (which is justified because they didn't initiate the force and is currently monopolized by the state). The problem is that the idea of "competing" force-users presupposes a free market but the market cannot be free without established security (circular). Security-based insurance agencies will want to not protect people who initiate force, however there will be an incentive (due to the "free" market) for them to rule on the side of their constituents even when they are not truly in the right (or else the constituents will find an agency that will rule on their side). So if two people had a confrontation, it would eventually become likely that their differing security agencies would both rule in favor of their respective defendants which puts them at odds with one another. So now might-is-right and the bigger agency will have the last say in the situation. This is in direct opposition of the spirit of the free market. Without a monopoly on the use of force, I don't see how conflicts could be resolved because of the lack of universal state law. Without proper conflict resolution, there is no free market. Rebuttals?
MrCapitalism Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Are you looking to win this argument, or to reach the truth?
Andrew79 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Markets and market security are not two completely different things. The first people to trade didn't wait until there was a legal framework in place before they began. The market for trade created the market for security, the two are intertwined. As for competing security agencies fighting each other, it could happen, after all it has been for thousands of years. A notable recent example being the USA and UK agencies inventing a story to attack the Iraq agency. And this goes on because of the incentives - little, if any, cost to their leaders, but massive benefits. In a free society, with no territorial monopoly on security, those incentives are reversed - massive costs and risk to the leader and the entire business and all its employees, but little benefit. And when you have a monopoly on law, in addition to the perverse incentives and the inefficiencies of any monopoly, it will reflect the political ideology of the current law makers. And this can change by the day, giving a rule of people, not of law. For a good overview of the subject, check out the three-part "Law Without Government" series on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo And if you're really interested in learning more, people like John Hasnas, Robert Murphy, Bruce Benson and Roderick Long, have explored the subject in depth.
Kevin Beal Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 The problem is that the idea of "competing" force-users presupposes a free market but the market cannot be free without established security (circular). Having a cut diamond presupposes another diamond cut enough to cut that diamond. Having an egg presupposes a chicken, but a grown chicken cannot have existed without being hatched from an egg. Having two things rely on each other is not logically erroneous. A circular argument describes propositions whose premises are used to support a conclusion and the justification for those premises is the conclusion itself. These are two different things. And that's if we accept your premise that violence is needed to stop violence (which I don't).
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Security-based insurance agencies will want to not protect people who initiate force, however there will be an incentive (due to the "free" market) for them to rule on the side of their constituents even when they are not truly in the right (or else the constituents will find an agency that will rule on their side). So if two people had a confrontation, it would eventually become likely that their differing security agencies would both rule in favor of their respective defendants which puts them at odds with one another. I would be curious at the ability of such security-based agencies to develop new constituents if they embolden such behavior.
reed07 Posted January 25, 2014 Author Posted January 25, 2014 For a good overview of the subject, check out the three-part "Law Without Government" series on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo Thanks for this series! It helped a lot!
dsayers Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Your opening paragraph makes no fewer than three unsubstantiated claims. I think the question as to whether you seek the truth or for your idea to be true is an important one, which you have not answered. As for competing security agencies fighting each other, it could happen, after all it has been for thousands of years. A notable recent example being the USA and UK agencies inventing a story to attack the Iraq agency. The US, UK, and Iraq are neither products nor examples of a market.
Andrew79 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 The US, UK, and Iraq are neither products nor examples of a market. Er, yeah. That was the point. I was using them to demonstrate that having a monopoly on security doesn't mean you have no conflicts.
reed07 Posted January 25, 2014 Author Posted January 25, 2014 I think the question as to whether you seek the truth or for your idea to be true is an important one, which you have not answered. I seek the truth. I support Libertarian principles such as the NAP but am currently deciding to what degree (minimalism vs. full-fledged anarcho-capitalism). I presented the opening paragraph so that others could help me clarify my confusion about how law would function in a society without a government. I assume that you could understand how such a system could easily seem far-fetched and non-viable to someone who has not thought about it extensively because of the lack of real-world examples of it currently functioning. For me to support anarcho-capitalism, not only do I want it to be the best system from a moral and theoretical perspective (such as being the only system that fully adheres to the NAP), but I also want to make sure that it is also viable in practice (which is even more important IMO). Could someone explain to me how security firms would not conglomerate and force smaller firms out of the market or to join them? Do you think that small security firms would stand a chance against large, well established ones? Capitalism relies heavily on several factors such as well informed consumers, a multitude of choices (government is a monopoly but an oligopoly can be just as bad), and ease of choice (i.e. there not being a large barrier to re-choosing a security firm if one's suddenly acts undesirably). Most theoretical models of capitalism take these things for granted, and I don't see them as unachievable, but I think that it is important to remember that lack of these factors can limit capitalism's effectiveness in practice. Don't get me wrong, though--I think capitalism is a great system.
dsayers Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Er, yeah. That was the point. I was using them to demonstrate that having a monopoly on security doesn't mean you have no conflicts. Ah, I see that now. Those two sentences back to back made it seem as if you were equating countries to security agencies. I support Libertarian principles such as the NAP but am currently deciding to what degree (minimalism vs. full-fledged anarcho-capitalism). I don't follow. If there were a degree, wouldn't it be the limited aggression principle? If so, how could we universalize this? If you own yourself and people are not fundamentally different from one another, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. To challenge that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral, you'd have to challenge self-ownership or that people are fundamentally different from one another. I assume that you could understand how such a system could easily seem far-fetched and non-viable to someone who has not thought about it extensively because of the lack of real-world examples of it currently functioning. Lack of real world examples? What percentage of your pursuits in life (friends, jobs, significant other, car, home, etc) do you accomplish by initiating the use of force? If the answer is a very low number, is this only because you believe a government will level consequences upon you for doing so? You would assume wrongly that I could understand how non-violent people whose lives are a series of non-coercive interactions with others would find the idea of non-coercive interactions as far-fetched. Don't get me wrong, I do sympathize with the propaganda. However, the moment you consider that maybe the propaganda is wrong, you're already there. Your examination of voluntary security forces is lacking the two most important characteristics: competition and consequences. The reason why government coercion withstands the test of time is that they get others to accept that to compete with them or for them to suffer any consequences for their actions is impeding their "providing a service" that the public needs to not be impeded.
Andrew79 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 I support Libertarian principles such as the NAP but am currently deciding to what degree That's simple, do you advocate using violence to get what you want? Could someone explain to me how security firms would not conglomerate and force smaller firms out of the market or to join them? Do you think that small security firms would stand a chance against large, well established ones? It's market, same as any other market. There's nothing to stop a firm buying out another firmBut the only way a firm can get business is to provide what people want.As soon as it stops, people will move away.Look at how quickly Facebook pulled the rug out from under Myspace.And if you're bothered about one big organisation controlling the market, why would you even look at the state as an alternative? Don't get me wrong, though--I think capitalism is a great system. All capitalism is, is a system that says you can own things, that's it.Let's have a closer look at the potential problems you raised:Reliance on well informed consumers - I do believe the gentleman who came up with this one won a Nobel prize. Which is odd because the market had already dealt with it through things like guarantees and magazines offering reviews.Where this is a real problem is not capitalism, but the alternative, collectivism. For example, when you vote for your glorious leader based on what he's promised to do, not only will he break his word as soon as possible, but everyone knows he will. If you think about that for a second, it's quite amazing, would you keep going to restaurants that never delivered what you ordered? And even make jokes about it and accept it as normal?And not only that, but you're then stuck with them. There's no guarantee and you can't even just take the loss and make another choice. Running out of time... I'll combine the last two into just monopoly - so the way to deal with possible monopolies is through a definite monopoly? Here's Rothbard explaining why monopoly is a collectivist problem, not a capitalist one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Opvlmy8i8
reed07 Posted January 25, 2014 Author Posted January 25, 2014 I don't follow. If there were a degree, wouldn't it be the limited aggression principle? Again, from a theoretical (and moral) perspective, it makes sense to hold non-aggression as universal. I know that it is impossible to know exactly how things will function in an anarcho-capitalistic society because the free market can spawn solutions to problems that are not easily imaginable, however I was trying to wrap my head around how this works in practice (the ultimate test), not just theory. Additionally, how would a society with a government fall into anarcho-capitalism (how does this all get started, functionally, without a new government or dictator taking over)? I know that there are no modern examples of this happening but I assume that someone has a theory on this. If a country such as the US, right now, had a revolution that lead into an anarcho-capitalistic society, what would happen to the property that the government currently owns, including land (the some 40% owned by the govt.), government buildings, war equipment (bombs, guns, etc), and more? I assume that the society would first have to become minimalistic and slowly shrink away, similar to how Marx intended the communistic government to shrink away?
dsayers Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 You differentiate theory from practice, but Andrew and I have already made the case that you practice the NAP. Therefor I find it curious that you did not address this. If a serial rapist stood before you, would you petition for "minimalistic and slowly shrink away" his evil? Would you not seek to end his reign of terror regardless of what's done with his ropes, chloroform, and windowless van? I'm not suggesting your consideration is an irrational one, just pointing out how flawed the approach is just because it's government you're talking about. What to do with the holdings of the government is a fine exploration. It's just one to engage in AFTER we accept that government is immoral, not as an excuse to not accept this truth.
WorBlux Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Rebuttals? Even if this is true, a monopoly has every incentive to rule in favor of itself. Second you've assumed that people will value maybe getting away with something more than their security agency suppressing crime which is unlikely. Third should some small actually adopt this model their costs would skyrocket as more and more claims proportionally are brought against their clients.
Livemike Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Security-based insurance agencies will want to not protect people who initiate force, however there will be an incentive (due to the "free" market) for them to rule on the side of their constituents even when they are not truly in the right (or else the constituents will find an agency that will rule on their side). Why would there be an incentive to back their clients regardless of right? When you back someone who is wrong their security agency HAS to defend their client. Those who do not defend their clients when they're in the right simply go broke. So any "back regardless" security agency, will constantly find itself at war with other agencies. The choices for an agency with a client in the wrong are a) back to the hilt, b) go to court and then accept any contrary judgement or c) give up immediately. The result of a) are war in which the other agency can't afford to lose. This is extremely expensive and unsustainable.The result of b) is that your clients accept that the agency tried their best for their client. The result of c) the clients conclude that the agency won't protect their interests if the evidence as much against their client as in this case. If the evidence is overwhelming this is trivial. If the question of guilt is at least questionable then clients will view this badly. Private security agencies don't just need to satisfy clients, they need to avoid expenses. Becoming "hired guns" without reference to the rights and wrongs doesn't do this. In fact other agencies will actively try to harm the agency if they do this, since the survival of an agency allows it's clients to ignore the law hurts them. They can only offer security if everyone agrees to the rules, at least in general. So acting like you posit actually costs a fortune just to defend the security agency.
Omegahero09 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Additionally, how would a society with a government fall into anarcho-capitalism (how does this all get started, functionally, without a new government or dictator taking over)? I know that there are no modern examples of this happening but I assume that someone has a theory on this. If a country such as the US, right now, had a revolution that lead into an anarcho-capitalistic society, what would happen to the property that the government currently owns, including land (the some 40% owned by the govt.), government buildings, war equipment (bombs, guns, etc), and more? I assume that the society would first have to become minimalistic and slowly shrink away, similar to how Marx intended the communistic government to shrink away? I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I tend to think that Adam Kokesh has the right idea- along with many others. Dissolve the government slowly over time, using the system and informing people via the political soapbox. However I disagree with him in practice, as Kokesh is running for president in the next election. I think States dissolving from the union is a much more plausible solution. Let the states break down into minarchy before breaking down their structures into the stateless societies. Say a state like Texas succeeds from the union, and lifts non-violent crimes from it's enforcement quotas. After an enormous unprecedented economic boon, I'm sure other states would follow suit, and dissolve from Washington.
Wesley Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 However I disagree with him in practice, as Kokesh is running for president in the next election. Just to add a small correction. I believe he is running in 2020, so that he can use any "hindsight is 20/20" puns that he may want to use. So not the next election, but an election in the relatively near future.
dsayers Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Say a state like Texas succeeds from the union, and lifts non-violent crimes from it's enforcement quotas. After an enormous unprecedented economic boon, I'm sure other states would follow suit, and dissolve from Washington. I think we have empirical evidence to support this NOT being plausible. A couple states recently said that marijuana was legal and people in the federal government threw a fit. Obama is the next Caesar. Playing by the rules on a smaller scale will have no effect on somebody that doesn't acknowledge the rules.
Omegahero09 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I think we have empirical evidence to support this NOT being plausible. A couple states recently said that marijuana was legal and people in the federal government threw a fit. Obama is the next Caesar. Playing by the rules on a smaller scale will have no effect on somebody that doesn't acknowledge the rules. This is true, but I highly doubt that Washington would really engage in open warfare against their "own people." I think they'd lose all of their support if they did so, and even so I don't think states acting in self-defense is all together a bad or immoral thing. It may escalate to that if, if the practice Obama has put into place of firing key military personnel for undoubtedly nefarious reasons, continues with future presidents. Not to mention, the military is full of well-intentioned people, I don't think they are as cold as the old sociopathic Nazi soldiers.
dsayers Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Sorry, but just as with my last post, I think that's wishful thinking. They don't have to declare war on "their own people" (ugh) if "their own people" actively participate in the theft of themselves and legitimize the thief. What future presidents? Do you not see the wholesale grab for the throne, everything it COULD embody, and the support of every person in a position formerly (and erroneously) called a check or balance? I think the soldiers of today are colder than Nazis. If for no other reason that they have the lessons of the Nazis to draw on. Also, nazism is nationalized socialism, which is precisely what everybody is cheering for in the US. We could have a revolution TODAY without a drop of blood being spilled if the enforcer class said, "No, morality doesn't apply differently to you or me even if you entice me with spoils and an artificial privileged class."
Omegahero09 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I'd have to disagree with you on the coldness bit there- the nazi's were trained to kill puppies they raised in their training, and went along with their ideals for murdering people wholesale. Our training doesn't come close to the evil ruthlessness that was put into the germans of that era. I don't think the military is moral or necessary, but I don't think that just because someone is enlisted or served makes them evil. I don't know about you but I've spoken with lots of veterans and members of the military, and only very few of them I've met were ill-intentioned people. And I do think it would work. Money talks, and people do love liberty even if they don't know it. A libertarian/anarchist succession would drive out those who disagree ideologically- but draw every business and entrepreneur and liberty-loving individual from all over the country. The boon alone would be more than sufficient to get people talking and other states would absolutely follow suit.You really think the patriotic and highly conservative american military will turn on americans? There's just no way I don't believe it.
dsayers Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 You really think the patriotic and highly conservative american military will turn on americans? There's just no way I don't believe it. Police do every day in every city. The fact that you (and they) use the word American is exactly the problem. "The enemy" aren't people because they're not "Americans" is the mindset. Then all you have to do to override the American limitation is point at somebody and say "terrorist" and their life is ruined, if not ended immediately. Torture is okay, indefinite detention is okay, acting without investigating is okay, killing without trial is okay. None of this is precise and all of it has margins of error up to 98%!! Going back to police, it's enough to say, "That guy has a burned out tail light!" Things got even worse once we put tazers into their hands since they're "non-lethal." The nazis didn't do Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Fallujah. That was done by the US. The same US that claimed to be at odds with Syrian chemical weapons while rending part of the planet uninhabitable by anything that desires to be genetically recognizable as a human. The same US that detonated over 300 nuclear bombs within Earth's atmosphere. Besides, what difference does better or worse make? It's all immoral and it all leads to the extermination of millions of HUMAN BEINGS. I try to avoid anecdotal evidence whenever possible, but one of my best friends and certainly the most influential person in my life over the last decade was in the military. He's also one of the most gentle people I've ever met. So to be clear, I'm not talking about the character of the individual, even though it certainly is tainted by the actual point of contention: the enforcer class.
Omegahero09 Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 The police I didn't consider. Then there certainly would be a wide divide between the sociopaths, non-thinkers and good people in the enforcer class (great nomenclature by the way) were a conflict to occur. However I think it'd be more of a "we won't trade with you" type of situation, threats to receive no military protection, subsidies etc. It'd be a cold war of sorts. People might become violent, but I doubt blood would shed on the explicit between the former united states and the free states.
Recommended Posts