Anarcho-capitalism in the Real World

Jeff Riggenbach,

As Objectivists, all they have to read is the works of Ayn Rand. Then they know everything.

I presume that the "they" you are talking about includes myself, since I call myself an Objectivist.

So, setting aside Ms. Rand's writings for the moment, and even the posts on this thread, let's see if there is some interesting reading on the Internet - and stay on topic, of course.

Ah yes, the CIA World Factbood on Somalia.

What about this material? Does it meet the criteria of factual writing?

It is very interesting reading on what happens when anarchy takes control.

I especially liked this part of their free market:

Environment current issues: famine; use of contaminated water contributes to human health problems; deforestation; overgrazing; soil erosion; desertification

And this:

Major infectious diseases:
degree of risk: very high
food or waterborne diseases: bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, and typhoid fever
vectorborne diseases: malaria and dengue fever are high risks in some locations
water contact disease: schistosomiasis
animal contact disease: rabies (2004)

And of course their judicial system:

Following the breakdown of the central government, most regions have reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, either secular, traditional clan-based arbitration, or Islamic (Shari'a) law with a provision for appeal of all sentences

I would love to see you, yes YOU, JEFF R, submit your sorry ass to their local justice - say about slander - but in anything, any legal dispute you could dream up will do. It would be interesting to see what arguments on non-initiation of force, for instance, would enlighten them and be of any avail - especially if they decided to lop off your right hand or something. Well, at least under the Islamic (Shari'a) law, you can appeal. That should be a comfort while the sword-smith is sharpening his instrument...

Now your turn.

How about some of that material you are talking about that us poor ignorant critters will not read? Can you give me any info on a successfully existing country in the world community that is governed by "law that came into existence in a society without a State?" All I have seen so far are opinions on this that have been published during the last thirty years or so (and that are sooooooo "eager to explain" all kinds of stuff to me), but then again I probably missed something from keeping my nose only in Ayn Rand's works.

(Yawn) I do kinda prefer facts, though. Nasty habit of mine. Must be from living in Brazil for 30 years.

So how about a suggestion - a way of making the abstract concrete - here and now, not in theory - a suggestion, a rational one, and not even law for the time being - just a rule to test the society of this particular SOLO forum (without a State), just to see how a governing idea without a government would work in practice:

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

(Heh. For some reason I doubt you will shut up...)

Michael

Post 61

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 1:21pm

Jeff Riggenbach points out that much has been written by anarchists attempting to explain "how law can come into existence in a society without a state." He then goes on to say, "But of course no one here has read any of this material." That is not true.

I am looking at my bookshelf as I write this. I have and have read:

Robert Nozick Anarchy State and Utopia. (Nozick isn't an anarchist, but it is an important book in the debate.)

Randy Barnett, The Structure of Liberty.

Bruce Benson, To Protect and Serve, and The Enterprise of Law.

David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom.

Chris Sciabarra Total Freedom. (Summary of Rothbard, I've read him, but don't own the books any more.)

The Lysander Spooner Reader. (Just to get back to the roots.)

Roy Childs, Liberty and Power.

Karl Hess, Mostly on the Edge. (Autobiography)

This isn't all I've read, but it is all I've read and retained in my library.

I've also had extensive discussions with George H. Smith on the topic. I've also read a lot from the limited government side. I don't doubt that others on this list have read much of the literature as well, although probably not as much as I have. I used to be obsessed about it. The problem is I still haven't resolved it.

Unfortunately there is a flaw in each side's argument. I haven't been able to resolve it in favor of either side.

The flaw in the anarchist position is that they cannot deal with national defense and invasion. This is a different problem from the evolution of laws, but it must be resolved for an anarchist system to work. Perhaps an anarchist evolution of a non-state from a state of nature could work, but you can't get there from here--ever--under any circumstances. Friedman acknowledges this in titling one chapter"National Defense: The Hard Problem." I will be happy to listen to any argument Mr. Riggenbach cares to make about this, but it will just happen doesn't cut it. I'd be happy to look in the sources and reconsider any argument made there.

The limited government side isn't off the hook. No one has ever made a convincing argument that you can fund a limited government with the components of national defense, police, and the courts without initiating force. That includes Rand's essay "Government Financing in a Free Society." Voluntary payment as an argument is about as silly as the "it will just happen" argument of the anarchists. I understand that for Objectivists non-initiation of force is derived, and not a given, but the entire political system of Objectivism is based on it. For that to stand someone must explain how such a society can be funded. If anyone is able to point me to an argument in the literature or make an argument that I haven't heard--let me know.

I'm not sure that it is important for me to resolve this. If I ever get to decide between an anarchist system, and a real limited government system I'll be a happy man. But sometimes it is fun to debate it.

Bill

Post 62

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 1:52pm

Bill-

Great post! Thanks for joining the discussion. It's good to see someone else who sees practical issues with both idealistic constructs, though our primary concerns about them differ.

I've seen some creative articles on ancap defense and can search for the links tonight if you want them. They involve insurance agencies with such capital and power I'd be very suspicious of them becoming coercive governments though...

As for voluntary funding of even a monolithic night-watchman state, I think it feasible despite free-rider problems if a) % is low enough, and b) social structure encourages it at least to the degree that voluntary tipping is (in the US). I have read (no, I don't have link to data handy) that pre-1860 US fed govt took 1.5% of GDP. If that's true, I think voluntary funding actually could support a fed govt of that scale, though obviously nothing near the current behemoth.

Post 63

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:17pm

Aaron,

I'd be willing to read anything--within reason giving anarchocap arguments about self defense. However, I've read Rothbard and Hoppe's arguments and I don't buy them at all. It is going to have to be something different.

It should deal with the following scenario--or something similar. The U.S. has become the perfect anarcho-cap non-state with a variety of large insurance companies providing protection. The Chi-coms decide that the Taiwanese are too dangerous to invade, so they mount a full attack here--including nukes. Explain how the insurance companys would defend me.

Bill

Post 64

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 5:34pm

Bill -- What a relief -- what a pleasure -- to encounter an Objectivist who has actually done some reading! It does happen to me from time to time, but far too damned infrequently.

Robert James Bidinotto -- I didn't mean you -- and you knew that, didn't you? I wrote that post rather late in the day (for me) and too hastily. I shouldn't have been quite so all-inclusive in my damnation. I should have written something more like: "But try to find more than a handful of people here who have bothered to read any of this material."

Robert, you write: "Perhaps it makes Riggenbach feel smug to pigeonhole Objectivists as illiterates."
Not smug, not at all. Despairing. Believe it or not, I started out as an Objectivist back in the '60s, and I despair when I look out there and see the flock of unthinking sheep -- typified to my mind by Michael Stuart Kelly -- that Rand's followers have been transformed into.

What we know of history suggests that law developed before the State. When the conquering marauders who formed the first States took over their first agricultural communities, they found a body of law in place and took it over too. It helped to legitimate what would otherwise have been too easy to identify as merely a protection racket. The early agricultural communities had government, but no State. On this point, see The State by Franz Oppenheimer, Our Enemy, the State by Albert Jay Nock, and Freedom and the Law by Bruno Leoni. The anthropologist Robert L. Carneiro is relevant here too, especially his "Theory of the Origin of the State," which was first published in Science 169: 733�738.

Bill, on "national defense" without the State, see Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, "National Goods versus Public Goods: Defense, Disarmament, and Free Riders," available online at
http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae4_1_4.pdf

Harry Browne wrote a popular article on national defense a few months back, which I feel expresses very eloquently my own view of the subject. I'll locate it and post the url.

JR

Post 65

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:27pm

Quoth Jeff Riggenbach:

"Believe it or not, I started out as an Objectivist back in the '60s, and I despair when I look out there and see the flock of unthinking sheep -- typified to my mind by Michael Stuart Kelly -- that Rand's followers have been transformed into."

I don't believe that that's a fair assessment of Mr. Kelly. From reading his arguments extensively on this and other threads, and on this and other issues, I don't believe that he's what many would refer to as a "Randroid" by any stretch of the imagination.

As a matter of fact, his arguments are generally very empirical: He's lived in a Third World country, and he's lived in the US. He likes the US better, and he's drawn certain conclusions as to why he likes the US better and why the differences he's observed might justify some actions on the part of the US government that might not be justified on the part of the government of Brazil (or Iraq).

I certainly disagree with some of the things Mr. Kelly thinks -- but the solution to that is to try to convince him to think different things, not to conclude that he doesn't think at all.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 66

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 7:23pm

An aside, perhaps...

Jeff:

"What we know of history suggests that law developed before the State. When the conquering marauders who formed the first States took over their first agricultural communities, they found a body of law in place and took it over too. It helped to legitimate what would otherwise have been too easy to identify as merely a protection racket."

Well said. That's exactly what the Russian Communists, et al, and the Nazi Socialists did. They maintained the illusion of law while all the time operating in a supralegal manner.

Solzhenitsyn, in the Gulag Archipelago, discusses the Soviet criminal code (section 51, if I recall) and shows how it can be construed (intentionally) to hold anyone guilty of anything. Very convenient.

Ross

Post 67

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 8:19pm

Aaron, Bill P.,

Perhaps it would be productive to survey countries that currently approach minarchism (as close as possible). Those currently most lax in taxation, while having good human rights records could be ideal candidates (it doesn't always have to be a US historical epoch, although the latter half of 19th century America is a most intriguing example. Aaron, I await your search.)

How about Bahamas? From the wikipedia entry on tax-havens:

The Bahamas levies neither personal income nor capital gains tax, nor are there inheritance taxes.

Or Vanuatu...

Vanuatu, an island archipelago state in the Micronesian Pacific, is a tax haven that does not release account information to other governments and law enforcement agencies. In Vanuatu, there is no income tax, no withholding tax, no capital gains tax, no inheritance taxes, and no exchange controls.

I don't know much of the human rights record of both countries, but I don't think the tourist-oriented Bahamas will be behind Somalia. Have to search more... maybe the Fraser Institute or similar institutes can help here.

Hmmm... an interesting read (pros and cons):
Bahamas Through The Eyes Of A Transplanted American

Lots of cons in the latter part, but don't forget the last sentence!

It would be very interesting to conduct a vote-with-your feet SOLO poll on this issue.
_____________________

Poll: If you are going to be a person of average means in just one of these two countries right now, where would you want to live?

a) The Bahamas
b) Somalia

Do I see a long queue for (b)?
_____________________

I'm glad I started this thread with a real world perspective. The AnCaps are forced to consult current and relevant empirical evidence for their stand. I still haven't seen any compelling ones.

Post 68

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 7:47pm

Jeff P : Way back in post 13 you mentioned "the progress made in the last 35 years." I could use some cheering up. Could you cite some examples? I am not being sarcastic here. I personally see very little change that I would call progress, but possibly my cynicism gets the best of me.

Post 69

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 9:13pm

Mr. Thomas Knapp,

Thank you very much for your kind and measured words.

Believe it or not, I had a part in that Post 60 about you being a very enjoyable exception - one of those who actually argues with facts. After drafting it, I couldn't find anywhere to place it that would not water down the impact of calling out our colleague with his self-proclaimed vastly superior erudition to see if he had any facts in him at all.

Well, he does drop a name or two once in a while and certainly has pro-anarcho-capitalist opinions and even more opinions about the people on this forum. And I just love it when counterfactual pompous opinionated asses say bad things about me. Imagine my reputation if they started saying good things! People might get the impression that I think like they do. Dayamm!

But getting back to my opinion of you, let me state here what I was going to say there. There are some qualities I find extremely refreshing in your posts (I have only skimmed your website a couple of times due to lack of time - but I intend to do more). To start with, you refuse to be intimidated when you think you are right and you always counter with reasoned arguments backed by research. We can disagree on what your facts might mean but we almost never have a problem of any lack of them to discuss.

I admit, I am a bit more lapse in this, but that is due to a few extenuating circumstances, like my library and laptop still being in Brazil and my extended visit here at my parents for very personal reasons. They use a slow dial-up Internet connection, so even google searches can become tiresome. I still have a month or two before this will change, so many of my arguments rely on my memory and will do so until then.

As you did not mention my references to other authors, I will. I have peppered many of my posts with non-Rand works ranging from Mark Twain to Aries de Geus, just to cite two more recent ones. I have even made recent mention of the sacred Harry Browne. I like reading and do a lot of it. I justify this to you, Thomas, just in case you may be swayed into thinking that I am a non-read nincompoop like our paragon of encyclopedic recondite literacy would imply.

Just one other small fact about my life. I worked as a professional translator for about 13-14 years and during that time I translated over 35,000 pages of text - literally. That is no exaggeration. Everything from public bids, laws, contracts, articles of association, practically all public registry documents, encyclopedia articles, scientific studies, telecommunications, oil, mining and metallurgy, balance sheets, history, electronics, construction, automobiles, literature, food, farming, you name it, I translated it - I used to own over 250 technical dictionaries and since I only really needed about 50 of them, I got rid of the dead weight. This has served as a vast educational experience that a simple trombone player and conductor would have never had under any other circumstance.

I use simple language on a public forum by choice, especially avoiding traditional jargon and catch-phrases, from a conviction that any good argument must stand up to being understood by an ordinary person, without the razzle-dazzle. Just plain language. It is very challenging to do this.

Whew! Once I start in about myself...

Anyway, I subjected myself to the wrath of Linz from the very beginning if you remember our initial posts to each other. You were being crucified and I threw out a few friendly words. That is because I saw an intelligence I could respect posting, one who took on all comers and kept his cool. And kept the facts coming.

You have never disappointed me in this over time. I generally fall more in line with Robert Bidinotto - and you know that. Robert has been doing this stuff for years and he is a very formidable intellectual opponent. The way you hold your own with him has won my respect and admiration (screeeeeech!!!! - er... don't get excited - that does't mean that I think you are right or anything most of the time...).

You also correctly identified my love of this country. (I also love Brazil, by the way, but that is another long story.) And we have even moved each others' positions a smidgen a couple of times by rational discussion. But that is what you are supposed to do on a discussion forum anyway.

I am especially grateful that, despite your stated reservations, you put your own love of this country into your job when you were in the armed forces.

We disagree - a lot. But you are someone I can respect. And I do. You love this country and I see it.

Wanna know something else? There are serious changes to be made in this country. I would not be surprised if one day we were on the same side of a real political issue out there in the real world and not just posting on a discussion forum.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/12, 9:49pm)

Post 70

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 9:32pm

Jeff-

"But try to find more than a handful of people here who have bothered to read any of this material."

I have certainly met some dogmatic Randians before, but SOLO seems to have a good mix of people who read about and consider ideas that aren't strictly party line. My bookshelf looks like an amalgumation of Robert's and Bill's. For ~8 years I'd have described myself as an Objectivist anarchist, though now I'm a bit more cynical about both.

Thanks for the Hummel link, I haven't seen that one before.

Bill-

Only article I was thinking of that I could find now is:

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf

using insurance and call options to deal with externality problems in defense. I personally don't have the same concern as you with anarchocapitalism - if you could somehow make it internally stable I think it would be at least as difficult to invade as a decentralized, defense-only, militia heavy country akin to Switzerland. My concern (the same as with minarchy) is instead lack of stability against internal devolution into 1 or more mobs/coercive governments. And if State Farm starts deploying SAM batteries, I don't think it would be long before they create a flag and make their premiums mandatory.

As for your particular scenario, "the Chi-coms decide that the Taiwanese are too dangerous to invade, so they mount a full attack here--including nukes." - yikes! Red China has ~425 nuclear warheads, I don't know exactly their delivery capability, but it includes at least some ICBMs that can hit the western US. If China were for some reason to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on us, millions of Americans would die - regardless whether we have our current government, an idylic Objectivist minarchy, a Rothbardian wet-dream anarchocapitalism, or a Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship.

If you want to consider something other than Red China already deciding to nuke us it might be more interesting. Your scenario seems rather bizarre, since I'm not clear why you refer to Taiwan at all (do you think a minarchy or ancap would attempt to altruistically defend Taiwan against China?), and especially how you have China considering starting a nuclear war as less dangerous than invading an island 90 miles away.

Post 71

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 9:58pm

Michael,

Thank you for your extended reply -- I had actually been wondering about your background.

And, for the record, I consider it damn near axiomatic that anyone who quotes Mark Twain can't be all bad (although born in Tennessee, I'm a nearly lifelong Missourian, and I believe he may be my state's most worthy export to date).

On the other hand, I'm in no hurry to dismiss Mr. Riggenbach, either -- as a matter of fact, even less so than I might be to dismiss you. I know him to be a long-time and committed libertarian and a fantastic writer with a lengthy and impressive resume, and also regard him as a friend.

Given his 40+ years of involvement in the libertarian movement, including Objectivism at an early point, I suspect that his current remarks are to be taken less as evidence of a bad attitude than as a symptom of ... 40+ years of involvement in the libertarian movement, including Objectivism at an early point.

I've been involved in philosophy and politics for a much shorter time, but I can also attest to the irritation that sometimes accompanies having the same discussions and making/rebutting the same arguments over and over, year after year, with interlocutor after interlocutor.

There's been bad blood between Rothbardians and Objectivists ever since "The Collective" tried to bludgeon Rothbard into divorcing his wife for not being an atheist back in the 1950s (if that's the way it actually happened -- I've only heard the account from one side), if not before. It shouldn't be surprising that, over the course of half a century, members of both groups have occasionally become dismissive or resorted to shorthand evaluations that might carry nuance for people who've been around the milieu for a similar length of time, but seem simply terse to those who haven't.

Finally, you wrote:

"I would not be surprised if one day we were on the same side of a real political issue out there in the real world and not just posting a discussion forum."

Neither would I, and I look forward to it. Of course, my practical political work right now is based in the Missouri legislature (and, occasionally, with respect to a federal appointment I hold that fortunately has no real duties at the moment).

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 72

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 10:40pm

Tom,
I have to disagree with you on one small point. (Usually I disagree on larger points, but never mind.)

I am that state's most worthy export to date. (Though I admit Twain is more famous. For now.)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 5/12, 10:43pm)

Post 73

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:07am

Jeff,

Hear, hear!

btw - When's that novel due out?

Michael

Post 74

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 1:33am

Jeff,

You wrote:

"I am that state's most worthy export to date. (Though I admit Twain is more famous. For now.)"

I stand corrected! What part of the state are you from, and where have you been exported to?

Regards,
Tom

Post 75

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 2:00am

Quoth Bill Perry:

"The flaw in the anarchist position is that they cannot deal with national defense and invasion."

Interesting. I've always considered that one of the least difficult problems to deal with, given certain preconditions.

Those preconditions are:

1) An armed populace, and

2) A populace that is, in general, happy with an anarchist society and not inclined to submit to state rule.

Given those preconditions:

1) An anarchist society would face the same difficulties in mounting an actual defense against a nuclear strike as state societies do (none has, so far, been successfully developed);

2) Probably face more difficulties in mounting a deterrent to a nuclear strike than a state society (nuclear weapons are expensive, have no use on earth other than as a deterrent, and would require significant pooling of capital that could be otherwise invested in productive enterprises).

3) Then again, the purpose of a nuclear strike is, in theory, to wreak enough havoc that the state hit with one must surrender for lack of ability to coordinate a defense ... and that is precisely the weakness that an anarchist society doesn't have. There's no state to surrender, and the defense is already decentralized. So it really doesn't strike me as much of a problem, because there would be no gain of any kind to be had by launching a nuclear strike at an anarchist society. States aren't always rational, of course -- but that problem exists whether the society being threatened by an irrational state is anarchist or not.

4) Insofar as conventional invasion is concerned, it would be less practical versus an anarchist society than versus a state society. As I mention above, there is no entity which is empowered to surrender "on behalf of" an anarchist society and make that surrender in any way way authoritative. If the populace was armed, and happy with anarchism, then any invader would simply be entering into a milieu of unremitting resistance and guerilla warfare. So invasion in order to rule the population would be a losing game.

And invasion for the purpose of economic conquest would just be silly -- since an anarchist society would have no export restrictions, any resource that the potential invader wanted could almost certainly be bought on the market at a cheaper price than would be entailed by trying to invade in order to take that resource by force.

I'm sure there are some weaknesses in the argument above -- it's 4 in the morning and I'm writing this off the cuff -- but I don't believe it is facially apparent that "national defense" is a comparatively weak point in anarchist theory. I'd be more worried about internal agitation for adoption of a state, "brush wars" between economic competitors, etc., than I would be about threats from an external invader.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 76

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 2:10am

Thanks to everyone who provided links to articles. I will read them this weekend. I need to work today instead of perusing them. I'm only going to respond to the one question Aaron raised in post 70 at this point. This is one reason that I have trouble participating in discussions like this one. I like to read and think about things before responding. The debate moves on while I'm doing that.

I used the Chi-coms as an example because they have the greatest current military capability. I had them skip Taiwan just for fun and sake of argument. If the U.S. adopted an anarcho-cap model I don't think anyone would defend Taiwan except the Taiwanese. But they would fight. And they do have a government, so the example doesn't help me in trying to find out how an anarcho-cap government would function in such a situation.

Bill

Post 77

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 5:54am

Num++, (did I get that right?)

Interesting link to tax havens. It relates to something I have started to investigate. How does one unhook oneself from the "State"? A related issue is the fact that for any two freedom minded people, their choices of domicile will differ based on highly individual values. I might be inclined to accept high taxes in country A if the rest of the package is good for me. The perpetual tourist lifestyle is looking more and more attractive.

John

Post 78

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:43am

num++

Ancap prescriptions I've seen for getting there is the vague idea of reducing govt by eliminating unjust aspects and opening other to competition, and in a certain general order - eg. prefer eliminating welfare state before ending anti-immigration laws, and privatizing police/courts/military is the *last* step. It sounds like the same libertarian/Objectivist process for reaching minarchy, except they just disagree on whether the last step can or should be taken (whether it can I consider moot). I don't know of ancaps, even Rothbard at most blustery, that instead thought violent destruction of the state in a civil war would spontaneously cause an ancap Shangri La.

So if Bahamas is n steps from minarchy, it's n+1 from ancap. In Somalia you're talking about reducing the scope of some local warlord's reign - I'm assuming this is m steps to minarchy, m+1 steps to ancap, with m definitely > n.

Existence of Bahamas, Vanuatu, NZ, Chile, Estonia, and maybe 5-25 more (depending on how you measure) states that may be less restrictive than the US is encouraging, but doesn't really make me think that the ideal (min or an) will be attainable and stable. If there are important lessons to be learned in *how* a state could be reduced at all though that could be valuable. At one point I followed NZ since they seemed to be bucking the trend by deregulating and reducing govt over an extended period, but my understanding is they've been backsliding for most of the past decade. I don't really know details about other relatively reduced states, how they got there, if they are trending the right direction, etc.

Post 79

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:58am