Anarcho-capitalism in the Real World

Quoth "num" --

"The worst part of Thomas K.'s post is the '...got its ass beat'."

There's not really any nicer way to put it. The US forces went in thinking that hauling a few bags of rice in with them would give them carte blanche to dictate. They learned, very quickly, that that was just not going to happen. It was an ugly lesson, and there's no point in re-interpreting it into something it wasn't. We -- I was part of the "us" involved at the time, and tentatively slated to participate if the mission hadn't ended so quickly -- got our asses whipped fair and square. Sorry. That's just the way it happened. I watched it happen with the kind of interest that only a "shit, that is where I'm going soon?" mindset can arouse. (I still kept my name on the volunteer list, though -- glutton for punishment, I guess).

"The reason for the influx of cash to Somalia was Al Qaeda. The reason the phone and ISP service was cut by the US was because Al Qaeda used it to finance the 9/11 attacks."

So far as I know, nobody has previously asserted that "the influx of cash to Somalia" was al Qaeda's doing. They were certainly present, and they were trying to do the same thing the US was -- impose a state on the place. In their case, of course, it was a Sharia Islamist state. They failed, too.But it's unlikely that their presence accounts for any huge infusion of cash into the Somalian economy. That occurred later, and it occurred due to entrepeneurial activity, not some weird "welcome to the Osama bin Laden Dome" sponsorship scheme.

Insofar as al Qaeda having used Somalia telecommunications to finance 9/11, the US government has indeed accused some telecom operators serving Somalia of financing al Qaeda.

As you'll recall, the US government has made many allegations, and those allegations routinely turn out to be false (think WMDs; think "operational relationship between Saddam and bin Laden").

Based on the US government's record, and on the fact that the cutoff of phone services in Somalia coincided with the Somalian people's rejection of yet another "appointed by the US for our own good" state, I tend to discount the stated reasons in favor of the obvious ones.

Tom Knapp

Post 41

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 1:52pm

Phil,

"'I apologize for the error. It was unintentional and I regret it.'

"Thanks, Tom for saying that."

No need for thanks. I don't always know it when I'm wrong, but when I do know it, it just makes sense to admit it. Everyone will know it anyway, right?

Of course, some people think I'm wrong pretty much all of the time. I don't see it that way, or I'd get right ;-)

Regards,
Tom

Post 42

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 2:06pm

I wasn't going to join this anarchal thread, but a tourist with a camera just sat nearby at a hotel I'm staying at on vacation in N. Carolina and he looks as if he wishes to talk. So I'm typing!!

I think this topic will be moot once a critical mass of objective people simply won't put up with the brutes (statists) anymore. When a majority or a large minority of your neighbors agrees with you about the initiation of force being reprehensible, then you should be pretty safe -- and I would imagine that most people (including anarchists) will probably allow our current artificial government entities to exist with pure objective constitutions. (Whenever I am around 5 or 15 or 35 Objectivists and realize that I can leave my wallet open on a table with cash hanging out for days without even a thought as to whether it will be there when I return for it, I understand what it will be like in an objective world.)

That said, let me say a few things about anarchal "concentric law" -- wherein each individual or consenting group of individuals has its own hegemony over law concerning those people -- and that law is carried theoretically into an adjoining bar, supermarket, household, where another individual or group of individuals has its own law.

This scenario is unenforceable -- and therefore invalid. One of the primary reasons for law and law enforcers is that some people are coercive -- and, of course, there can be errors of knowledge or irrational arguments over issues. With this in mind, you can't have interested parties. You can't have the judge and jury be the people who are actually a party to the dispute or friends to the parties in dispute -- worse, the offender in a dispute. You must objectively have disinterested parties. Anarchy would allow interested parties to simply set up their own law; it would actually provide a haven for irrational people and brutes. It would create little Somalias.

A broad, semi-rational, territorial authority usually solves this problem to a large degree, even without totally objective laws. To the degree that a territorial authority is irrational, it will be coercive: taxes, eminent domain, zoning, building permits, etc. But a rational territorial authority will have rational laws and keep the distance between the parties in a dispute and their judgers considerable.

Once we have a predominance of objective people, then the making of correct laws and the execution of those laws should be virtually perfect. In the few cases in which they are not, the rational public will correct the laws and censure such officials -- actually, kick them the hell out of office.

(Edited by David Elmore on 5/11, 2:12pm)

Post 43

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 2:47pm

Let's plod once again.

As many of you know, Knapp and I have been having a running battle on several threads here concerning the limited government vs. anarchism issue. I support limited government; Knapp supports anarchism. And this thread is about the viability of "anarcho-capitalism in the Real World."

Since that is the context in which posts here from either of us must be interpreted, you be the judge of the meaning of the following exchange:

Knapp, post 16:

Actually, the "wild west" was, in fact, pretty wild -- just not as wild as thoroughly governed Boston, which had a higher per capita homicide rate than the US west of the Mississippi throughout the last half of the 19th century.

Does that not appear to be a claim about the relative inferiority of a "thoroughly governed" city to the less governed "wild west"? I took that as his meaning, and thus replied in post 19:

The comparison of crime statistics in the "Wild West" and in Boston is therefore nonsensical, and drawing any conclusions about the value of government from such numbers is nonsense on stilts.

Here I explicitly raise the issue of the issue of government, in italics. Knapp now had the opportunity to explicitly repudiate my interpretation of his words. But he doesn't. Instead, after directly quoting the preceding passage, here's how he responds in post #20:

In other words, since fact and reality don't support your case, screw fact and reality. Not that that's any surprise.

Here's a well-researched, footnoted analysis of crime rates in the "wild west" versus those in the "civilized east." You can like the facts or you can not like the facts. Either way, the facts will remain facts:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/shall-issue.html#c35

Note that Knapp at this point does not deny that his reference in post #16 to "thoroughly governed Boston" was meant to compare Boston unfavorably to the less governed "wild west." He does not reject my interpretation, in post #19, that his words were meant to be so construed. To the contrary, he even appears to be reiterating that as being his point, and citing a paper in support of it.

Next, in post #23, Knapp blames the economic collapse of stateless Somalia on outside intervention by governments, and sarcastically concludes:

And, whaddayaknow, the standard of living in Somalia fell back down. This, of course, is all the fault of those stubborn anarchists, not of the states conducting the war on statelessness in Somalia. The state, as we all know, is never to blame for anything.

What is a reasonable person to make of all this?

I interpreted his posts as being a continuation of his ongoing defense of anarchism and attacks on government. So I replied in post #27:

Knapp's characterization of the paper is "a well-researched, footnoted analysis of crime rates in the 'wild west' versus those in the 'civilized east.'" But in fact the paper does not compare crime and violence in the Old West against that of the same period in the "civilized east." Nor is it about the merits of anarchism vs. government as a control on violence in the Old West, either. Rather, it is about how gun ownership suppresses levels of crime and violence, which is quite another matter. The paper contrasts levels of violence in Old West towns of the late 1800s having no gun controls, with the violence in modern U. S. urban centers that do practice gun control.

Every single word of that is true, as anyone who reads the paper he cites can see for themselves. That paper does not compare "crime rates in the 'wild west' versus those in the 'civilized east'," as he claims it does. It also does not address the merits of anarchism vs. government -- which any reader would reasonably assume was the subtext of his comments in posts 16, 20 and 23.

Yet now, in post #30, Knapp responds indignantly. He denies the fact that he did indeed mischaracterize the cited paper as "a well-researched, footnoted analysis of crime rates in the 'wild west' versus those in the 'civilized east.'" He hotly denies that he ever had been implying anything about comparative merits of anarchism.

In fact, he now declares that his only aims had been to "rebut someone else's argument that a) the 'wild west' was 'anarchist,' and b) that it was 'wilder' than the 'governed east.'"

Oh really? I have previously provided examples of Knapp's sophistry. I invite you to reread his posts 16, 20 and 23, and decide for yourself what message you think he truly intended to convey. If you then conclude as I have, you may wish to add post #30 to the examples of his sophistry.

Post 44

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 3:32pm

Thomas K.:

So far as I know, nobody has previously asserted that "the influx of cash to Somalia" was al Qaeda's doing.

Islamists don't have to join Al Qaeda, they simply have to support it. Al Qaeda uses an informal remittance system known as 'hawala' in any country that becomes a base of operations. From Somalia Watch.org (4 October 2001, a month after 9/11):

The development of Islamic fundamentalism in Somalia is really frightening for many reasons. For one thing it is consolidating itself in a stateless situation not visibly seen by the outside world. Besides, unlike in the case of the Taliban or Ayattollah Komeni's Iran it is not possible to deal with it or tame it through diplomacy or bilateral relationship. Worse, islamists in Somalia control almost all business and political structures. Every lucrative and strategic business in Somalia is run by a rotating fund of islamist forces. All money transfer agencies (such as El-Barakat, Dahabshi', Al-Mustaq bal), telecommunication, import-export agencies, food-stuffs and the supply of building materials is owned by Islamic extremist forces. Clearly fundamentalists are slowly but steadily controlling Somalia. The method is very effective because it follows a bottom-up approach of multi-faceted process of state-formation unseen before in other parts of the world.

Unlike in Iran, Afghanistan or the Sudan in which islamists took power either by a coupdetat or an armed insurgency, in Somalia islamists are using a grass roots approach and a combined struggle of using ideology, business, military expansionism in a typical state formation applied in the past to create the modern states. If this process reaches its final stage it will become highly regimented, formidable and a hard nut to crack.

This ain't cheap. Don't underestimate the power of hard cash in a country as poor as Somalia. Money can charm desperate people into believing terrorists causes. Al Qaeda has used the same trick in attracting recruits in the southern Philippines. You say they failed in creating a Sharia state. They did not fail in Afghanistan. I wonder if without US pressure they would have succeeded.

And from the 9/11 commission staff statement No. 15:

In October 1993, two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down and 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in Mogadishu, Somalia. U.S. intelligence learned in the ensuing years that Bin Ladin�s organization had been heavily engaged in assisting warlords who attacked U.S. forces in Somalia. The head of the al Qaeda Military Committee, from a command center set up in Nairobi, Kenya, reportedly sent scores of trainers into Somalia...

You think you were beaten 'fair and square', and you blame the US for it? I shudder to think you have misplaced the blame on the deaths of your possible comrades (hopefully, they were not your comrades, though I still lament the loss of those soldiers).

Edited to correct date of reference.

(Edited by num++
on 5/11, 4:40pm)

Post 45

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:32pm

Quoth Robert Bidinotto:

"As many of you know, Knapp and I have been having a running battle on several threads here concerning the limited government vs. anarchism issue. I support limited government; Knapp supports anarchism. And this thread is about the viability of 'anarcho-capitalism in the Real World.'"

You appear to be confusing the subject line of the thread with my purpose in participating in the thread. My purpose in participating in the thread is not to "support anarchism" or to defend "the viability of anarcho-capitalism in the real world." At this time, my purpose is to dissect the arguments made on behalf of the state. Offering an alternative to the state is a subsequent project which I may or may not get around to at some future time. This is not the first time I've had to point that out. Hopefully, it will be the last.

"Knapp, post 16:

-----
Actually, the 'wild west' was, in fact, pretty wild -- just not as wild as thoroughly governed Boston, which had a higher per capita homicide rate than the US west of the Mississippi throughout the last half of the 19th century.
-----

"Does that not appear to be a claim about the relative inferiority of a 'thoroughly governed' city to the less governed 'wild west'?"

Thank you for the tacit admission in the above that:

a) I was contrasting the effects of "less" and "more" government, not anarchism and the state;

b) I was not asserting that the "wild west" was "anarchistic."

Of course, that admission invalidates any merit in your subsequent argumentation, so I'm not sure why continued, especially when, by way of "refuting" my citation of the Kopel article, you re-state what I said about the article, then accuse me of denying that that was what I said about it even after I re-stated that yes, that was what I said about it and that what I said about it was in fact correct (which it was and still is).

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 46

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:34pm

"If countries with governments are such a hell, why don't the ancap adherents move there?"

I wondered how long it would be til someone did 'love it or leave it'.

Post 47

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:38pm

"I think this topic will be moot once a critical mass of objective people simply won't put up with the brutes (statists) anymore. When a majority or a large minority of your neighbors agrees with you about the initiation of force being reprehensible, then you should be pretty safe -- and I would imagine that most people (including anarchists) will probably allow our current artificial government entities to exist with pure objective constitutions. "

Excellent points, agreed.

"Once we have a predominance of objective people, then the making of correct laws and the execution of those laws should be virtually perfect."

A 'predominance'? Do you really think it will take a true majority of rational objective people? I was hoping for something a little more realistic, like maybe a 2:1 or 3:1 objective:irrational ratio, and (realistic in my view) the vast majority of people complacent sheep.

Post 48

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:41pm

David Elmore writes:

You can't have the judge and jury be the people who are actually a party to the dispute or friends to the parties in dispute -- worse, the offender in a dispute. You must objectively have disinterested parties.

This is usually true. It's certainly possible for someone to be objective. The problem comes when trying to convince others of your objectivity.

Anarchy would allow interested parties to simply set up their own law; it would actually provide a haven for irrational people and brutes.

This does not at all follow and is not at all true. It is in the self-interest of individuals to have the settlement of their disputes be seen as fair and just by others.

In another thread I mentioned George H. Smith's essay Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Society. I will again recommend it for fully understanding this particular issue.

Why do the detractors of anarcho-capitalism believe that what is being talked about is a situation where a large portion of the population were concerned only with their short-term interests? Capitalism fosters and requires long-range thinking and acting. Don't they realize that their 'limited government' couldn't exist under such conditions?

Why do the detractors of anarcho-capitalism so often focus exclusively on the 'anarcho' and totally ignore the 'capitalism'?

Post 49

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:48pm

One of the things that puzzles me about the detractors of anarcho-capitalism is that they seem to think that the best way of dealing with violations of private property is to force the miscreants in some manner.

One of the best, if not the best way of teaching someone is by example. What kind of example does forcing them set?

The market works by offering positive incentives. Isn't that a better way of teaching people how to behave?

Post 50

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:46pm

Thomas, you wrote:

As has been the case, several times, you seem to be missing a key point. Because people have the capacity to choose poorly, and because government is people,...

Sorry man, but a very key point keeps getting overlooked. Wanna guess what it is from my last few dozens of posts or so? Well here it comes. Ta daaaa!!!

Checks and balances!

Yup. A government like what we have is not just people with guns. And yes, government people sure can choose poorly. That is also why there are laws, constraints, accountability - you know, rules that have to be followed. These rules ideally are based on (1) man's nature, (2) real estate boundaries (all right... country frontiers), and (3) individual rights.

Take out any one and you get a mess.

But let's take a new look at one very much forgotten point in our system of government. Man's capacity to choose poorly - which is a part of his nature - to the extent of trying to become a dictator.

Sorry, eight years is all you get. Can't do any better in America (well, maybe 16 if you can get your wife or son elected...)

Or we could eliminate the office altogether like you would have us do, but I want to keep what good we have. The alternative reality-wise is gang warfare and losing it all. Not so you say? Well I, for one, am not going to give anyone a chance to take my stuff just to prove their point.

But I ain't done yet.There is some more. Our ancestors further restricted this capacity of government people to choose poorly by dividing up power. That is why we elect them in the executive and legislative branches.

This was still not good enough for them though. So we have a non-elected judiciary to make sure our dear constituents don't vote themselves right out of liberty and democracy.

And even that was still not good enough for them. There is an appeals system.

And to complete the circle, there are special emergency powers given to our chief executive.

But wait. This is just one case.

Now let's do all that another fifty times just to make sure there are no dictators.

That, Sir, is just one of the reasons why the USA government is more than just people with guns who can choose poorly. And why it is one of the most amazing governing institutions to ever grace this earth.

Thank you very much - I'll take the 8 years and learn how to deal with that. Our Founding Fathers and the Congress after Franklin D. Roosevelt were very wise indeed.

We need more of that kind of thinking. Not this down-with-all-government crap.

(Now that I got that off my chest, why don't we get real and do something about regulatory agencies and other real problems of government abuse, instead of attacking the whole institution and getting laughed right out of the voting booths?)

Michael

Post 51

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 6:16pm

Rick and Thomas, do you think that given peoples propensity to organize themselves into groups, with rules, rituals, and consequences for breaking these rules, *any* anarchist society would inevitably come under *some* form of govt?

John

Post 52

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 6:31pm

Quoth John,

"Rick and Thomas, do you think that given peoples propensity to organize themselves into groups, with rules, rituals, and consequences for breaking these rules, *any* anarchist society would inevitably come under *some* form of govt?"

Of course. The question for me is whether that particular form will be the state which, as we know it, has existed for four centuries or so and has really metastasized only since the timeframe bookended by the tenure of Hegel and the chancellorship of Bismarck.

Tom Knapp

Post 53

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 6:40pm

Tom,

If that is the case, then at what point does the state cease being an anarchy and becomes a "libertarian" limited govt? And if the progression is inevitable given what we know about people (and this is crudely put on my part), anarchism is a losing proposition. And I say this as one who is sympathetic to the anarcho-capitalist position but sees it as largely unrealistic over time.

regards

John

Post 54

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 8:33pm

John Newnham writes:

Rick and Thomas, do you think that given peoples propensity to organize themselves into groups, with rules, rituals, and consequences for breaking these rules, *any* anarchist society would inevitably come under *some* form of govt?

I see the ideal "society" as being composed of many overlapping groups, each with its own customs, rules, and regulations. What I don't see any need for is a territorially monopolistic state. I would expect the fundamental rules and regulations to be essentially the same for the vast majority of people since I believe such rules and regulations should be discovered just as other principles of morality are. The specific implementations would, of course, vary — should judges wear wigs? does it really matter?

Post 55

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 9:13pm

Rick, are you Kidding with this???

One of the things that puzzles me about the detractors of anarcho-capitalism is that they seem to think that the best way of dealing with violations of private property is to force the miscreants in some manner.
One of the best, if not the best way of teaching someone is by example. What kind of example does forcing them set?
The market works by offering positive incentives. Isn't that a better way of teaching people how to behave?

You honestly believe that I can offer looters a "positive incentive" rather than defend myself? I think the Byzantine emperor tried that with Attila the Hun. It didn't work out so well for him.

Let me know when someone breaks in and takes your stuff and you happen upon them how well you are able to convince them that they are not acting in their best long-term interest. Perhaps you can point out where the best stuff is as a "positive incentive" for them to change.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a contradiction, because the entire edifice of capital is built upon Law and Security, which you cannot have under Anarchism. When do you get a low rate? When risk is low! People, Organizations, and Nations without security and law (rules that they follow) don't get capital because the risk is too high.

What are US forces then doing that will help the US and Iraq, for example? They are providing security, and providing for a rule of law, that once in place will allow Iraq to prosper. I predict it will work. Fighting them are people and organizations which feed off of anarchy. They do it so as to maintain control of the people and enslave them, not to free them. The US, like it did for Germany, Japan, Italy, and the former Communist Eastern Europe, is doing the opposite - providing the security and structure needed, which is now also the only way to eliminate terrorism.

Post 56

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 9:13pm

Quoth John:

"If that is the case, then at what point does the state cease being an anarchy and becomes a 'libertarian' limited govt?"

I have an opinion on the matter, but I'm not prepared to argue it at the moment. Then again, what the hell -- if I wait until I'm prepared to argue it, I never will be.

I'd draw the line between a non-state libertarian government (i.e. an anarchy) and a state libertarian government (i.e. a minarchy), based on two criteria, with both necessary to the definition of a state:

1) An assertion of a legitimate power to collect fees for service (i.e. taxes) from those whom it regards as falling under its charter, without respect to whether those persons have consented to be taxed or have asked for the services being offered;

2) An assertion of a legitimate power of perpetuating its rule without the explicit, continuing consent of the governed, i.e. an assertion that those born into the population governed by the state under its charter are considered to have tacitly consented to be governed by it (see the previous discussion of Jefferson's views).

At one time, I'd have included a third element -- the assertion of a geographical monopoly on the use of force. I've discovered some problems with that one, however, and am still thinking them over.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 57

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:42pm

"Anarcho-Capitalism is a contradiction, because the entire edifice of capital is built upon Law and Security, which you cannot have under Anarchism."

More abject ignorance. How many articles and books have been published over the past thirty years or so by anarchists eager to explain how law can come into existence in a society without a State? But of course no one here has read any of this material. As Objectivists, all they have to read is the works of Ayn Rand. Then they know everything.

JR

Post 58

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 7:40am

Riggenbach:

How many articles and books have been published over the past thirty years or so by anarchists eager to explain how law can come into existence in a society without a State? But of course no one here has read any of this material. As Objectivists, all they have to read is the works of Ayn Rand. Then they know everything.

What condescending bullshit. Perhaps it makes Riggenbach feel smug to pigeonhole Objectivists as illiterates. That spares him the bother of acquainting himself with published Objectivist critiques of anarchism. In fact, I doubt he even knows of their existence.

Anyway...

1. "...how law can come into existence in a society without a State?" Note the word "can." The anarchos are ever at a loss when you ask for a few flourishing, enduring real-world examples.

2. "But of course no one here has read any of this material." Well, exxxcuuuuuuuuse me, but my reading of this stuff started in the '60s, with all the little anarcho and libertarian rags, and over the years has also included Kinsella, Long (et al.), Childs, Rothbard, D. Friedman, Bruce Benson, and fair samples of a lot of others whose names I've long forgotten. Needless to say, I've found their arguments underwhelming. In fact, I don't know what is more ludicrous: the theoretical fantasizing about how rationally people "would" behave in the absence of a state, or the highly sanitized "histories" of how people actually have behaved in the absence of government.

A difference between Riggenbach and me is that though my own brief flirtation with anarchism began when I was about 19, by age 21 or so I had figured out that the notion was complete nonsense. Meanwhile, he and others of his ideological ilk are now approaching their senior years, yet still posture like rebellious adolescents. That is a pretty sad spectacle.

Post 59

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 7:46am