Anarcho-capitalism in the Real World

Jon-

Thanks for more info on China/Taiwan military situation. The China/Taiwan/NK/western arms dealers scenario you mention I hadn't heard before, but sounds plausible. Though I'm against US defending Taiwan, I'm all about selling (we are selling, not giving, right?) them the 'good stuff'. It would be interesting to see such a deal to have China deal with NK, and then just have front agencies sell to Taiwan anyway.

I'm somehow cursed with this image of cigarette butts in a urinal too, that was very effective imagery.

Jeff-

1) I'm not sure how much is a general world's policeman view, a cold-war holdover or what concerning defending Taiwan specifically.
2) Even lacking decent mechanized forces, troops can be projected by foot to bordering nations; doesn't work well across the straits.
3) I picture Normandy but with only half a dozen transports coming in at a time.

Post 101

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 10:35am

Thanks, Tom for elaborating on my sparse reply to Jeff.

Jeff, your point that we also keep significant naval power in the area in addition to what Taiwan has�which makes it appear that Taiwan really can�t protect itself all by itself�is a good observation. I may be in error in saying that Taiwan can do it entirely all by itself. They may need our presence at least for the satellite, radar, aerial, etc. intelligence interconnectedness that would make the naval assets we�ve supplied them completely effective. I�m not sure. It�s my impression they can do it all by themselves and our massive presence is just an exclamation point. Taiwan is actually a secondary reason for our naval presence in the region. The primary reasons being defense of Japan, the North Korean issue, and guaranteed open shipping lanes. The thinking probably goes: �We�re here always anyway, so why not sail down to the straits once in a while and put some gesture behind our words.�

Jon

Post 102

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 10:40am

Robert, Joseph-

I wrote the 98% v. 100% comment, and stand by it. I think you are assigning too much commonality in minute beliefs to anarchocapitalists, and far too much in the case of limited government advocates.

Many minarchists are not Objectivists, and their specific views on points you mention vary as much as among market anarchists. Among Objectivists (I'm using Rand's 'standing on one foot' definition of course, not 'those who the ARI approve') there is some more cohesion. Most oists agree with Rand's view on most things, including being minarchist, but there's still plenty of disagreement among oists once you are not talking about the defining bullet points. I've known more oists than I'd like who see coercive taxation as fitting in with laissez-faire capitalism, and some who even endorsed other statist measures such as central banking, monopolized govt roads, and eminent domain. On the other hand, some Objectivists take 'laissez-faire' to the extreme; I've been an Oist anarchist, I believe on SOLO Mark Humphrey is one, and I've personally known (in some cases, helped convert) others.

IP? Most, not all, Oists agree with Rand's view of patents and copyrights as property. You'll find no agreement counter that among other minarchists or ancaps though. eg. most LewRockwell crowd now appears anti-IP, but Rothbard himself (in 'Ethics of Liberty') promoted the idea of 'you will not copy' contracts which are binding to 3rd parties who didn't themselves agree to the contract - effectively creating the same IP scenario as now.

Defense, terrorism? Even oists don't have to subscribe to a false dichotomy, and can recognize that many terrorists are motivated by US foreign policy - yet still deserve to die for their terrorist acts.

Similarly, on appropriate punishment, border policies, and children's rights individuals have vastly varying views, even among objectivists.

NIOF - here Joseph, I do think you are correct; most non-Oist, natural-rights based libertarians (ancap or not) do not make many of the contextualist exceptions to NIOF some oists choose to make. Utilitarian libertarians actually have more in common with contextualist Objectivists on this point.

However, I've never met or read market anarchists who don't recognize the validity of 3rd party defense. Essays on private defence are rife with examples of 'A attacked B, so B hires C..' (substitute in 'Jones', 'Smith', 'Ruritania', etc. as desired).

The paragraphs about free-will/determinism, US being root of all evil in the world, other nations being ok in oppressing their citizens, are building strawmen. Libertarians - Objectivist or not, anarchist or not - see evil elsewhere as still evil. We just get the perception of them bitching mainly about the US rather than other countries because of local bias of what effects their life and what they may have some (admittedly miniscule) chance of influencing.

Post 103

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 11:07am

"As a matter of fact, I consider it much more likely that an anarchist society could come into existence from an environment of no state than through transitions into smaller and smaller levels of state power."

I stand corrected. Market anarchists are also not in agreement about how such a society is likely to be reached.

Post 104

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 11:10am

Here is a good article on the situation in the straits:

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2003/Vol29_2/7.htm

Post 105

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 5:22pm

Jeff Riggenback said:

Gee, who was it who said, "The lesser of two evils. . . is evil"?

You are apparently missing the point about context. Context is everything. Joe is making the point that context can make the choice to follow NIOF evil. Only by removing context and taking NIOF (or many other "rules") as being intrinsically good could you come up with a choice between "evils." So, your criticism isn't really a criticism. Its just a misunderstanding. Also, your argument (if I may call it that) smacks of "appeal to authority," as if the person who said something is never wrong, or never misunderstood.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 5/14, 5:23pm)

Post 106

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 12:25am

Ethan, no worries. I actually liked Jeff's response. After all, I was making the claim that anarchists are so blind they can't see differences in degrees. And he steps up to the plate and essentially announces "That's me! And Proud of it!". I couldn't ask for a better example.

Aaron said "However, I've never met or read market anarchists who don't recognize the validity of 3rd party defense."

You misunderstood me. I would agree that they accept a 3rd pary defense as you said, if party B hires party C. What I was referring to is whether party C can get involved without actually being hired by party B. In other words, you attack someone. Am I allowed to retaliate against you (or my government or protection agency) even without the approval of your victim? There are anarchists who believe I have no right, and only the victim (or maybe his family) have that right, unless they invite others to help.

Now the arguments I gave are based on the reasons why people accept anarchism, and what the logical conclusion of upholding those reasons should lead to. Similarly, those arguing for minarchism will have reasons that logically should lead them in particular directions. That there are exceptions to these is fine. It just means people haven't worked it all out.

My point, and Robert's as well, was that the differences between the anarchist position and the minarchist position is greater than just the 2% mentioned. The very reasons why people are anarchists and minarchists will necessarily have other implications besides whether they support that last 2% or not. In practice, we do see massive differences, as Robert's post made clear. But we see more than simple differences in the conclusions. We see a radically different approach to coming to the conclusions. That's what I'm talking about. When someone says the US is as bad as North Korea (many have argued that it's worse), it's not just a simple difference in our conclusions. An error that big isn't possible. The only thing that could account for it is an entirely different method of judging.

It's fine to argue that there are exceptions or inconsistencies on both sides. Feel free to go in that direction. But that doesn't invalidate the truth of it all. There is ample empirical and theoretical evidence to support the position that there is a far greater difference than just the 2%.

Post 107

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 12:16pm

John Newnham [post 77]:
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.

If you look at citizenship as a service rendered by the state, then the world will suddenly look like a marketplace of states competing for your patronage. By your second statement, people will then aggregate as to the degree of their political like-mindedness.

In an ideal world, people will just walk out of repressive regimes. Complications in the real world are plenty though - the tug of family, friends, immigration red tape (or outright emigration bans), language, culture, etc. - and reduce the individual's actual mobility.

The perpetual tourist is the ultimate in 'citizenship shopping', as its purpose is to render the individual non-accountable to any state. I doubt if many can live in that degree of permanent uprootedness. The solution for most people would be to settle on a tax-friendlier country, as many Americans have already done.

My apologies for the lateness of the reply.
_______________________

Aaron [post 78]:
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.

I think we're in a bit of misunderstanding here - Somalia is already an example of anarcho-capitalism (fits both requirements of no government and pure free market), so no more steps required.

I actually supported the "2% difference" argument when I started this thread, based on my own readings on ancap and ansynd literature. However, those excellent posts by Bidinotto [#85] and Rowlands [90 & now 106] are changing my mind. Political ideologies run their course in the real world, and the current evidence is that there are vast differences between a near-minarchy and an anarcho-capitalist state.

It could be that there is a "butterfly-effect" wherein small alterations in stated goals (the 2%) change people's behaviour in ways that produce vast differences in results. Criminal conduct is probably the single biggest factor here.
________________________

Some interesting findings I had on some of the countries listed in the Wikipedia tax-haven page - Andorra, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, and Luxembourg have longer life expectancies than the US. Luxembourg's GDP/capita (PPP) is almost 50% higher than the US. Andorra's GDP/capita (PPP) is the lowest among the five (~30% lower than the US) but has the highest life expectancy (+6 years compared to the US).

[All data from the CIA World Factbook].

Post 108

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 3:28pm

Joseph, num++

I advocate supporters of freedom working together, yet unwittingly joined in on the factional divisiveness. Robert's and Joseph's examples narrowed on extremely sticky contentious issues which are indeed divisive among libertarians (though not necessarily along clean lines). Questions such as criminal justice and children's rights/entitlements are incredibly difficult - perhaps intractable - and guaranteed to provoke heated disagreements even between Objectivists. However, limiting the focus to such contentious issues magnifies the appearance of differences, and doing so could even lead observers to wonder if fellow Objectivists are "not heading toward the same or even similar destinations." It makes sense to consider a broader set of political questions, and how would libertarians - Objectivist, ancap, other minarchist, etc. - answer compared to members of society at large.

What should the minimum wage be?
How much taxes should go to farmers not to work their land?
What speech should be disallowed?
At what age should social security start paying you?
What sexual acts between consenting adults should be forbidden?
How much should the central bank inflate the money supply next year?
What should be the punishment for owning a handgun?
Which substances should you be allowed to ingest?
What % tariff should we have on steel to protect our industry from foreign competition?
How late should public parks be open at night?
What percentage of your employees must be minorities?
How much should you be paid when your land is taken to build a new department store or auto plant?
For how many months should individuals be able to be imprisoned without charges?

We all know there exist hard issues where even the most rational, objective advocates of liberty will disagree, but to focus solely on them is needlessly divisive, and missing the forest for the trees.

Post 109

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 4:07pm

Aaron, let me provide a few more:

-What should our foreign policy be?
When are we justified in defending ourselves from hostile nations?
Are wars ever justifiable?
What should be considered an act of war?
Are we justified in coming to the defense of friendly nations under attack?
What nations should we consider to be friendly if any?
Can/should we form alliances?
Who can/should we sell arms to?
Is espionage a legitimate function of defense?
Do American's leaving the US territory lose their protection from our government? If they're killed, should we respond?
-Domestic policy
Should there be a death penalty?
Are subpoenas a violation of rights?
Is the point of criminal justice restitution or retribution?
Are quarantines legitimate?

I'm bored, but can go on if you really want.

Yes, your examples show that there are things we all agree on. That's misleading for a few reasons. One is that it only focuses on things we believe the government shouldn't be doing. Since we only think the government should do some thing, it stands to reason that you can come up with far more things that government shouldn't do.

Let's look at ethics. Altruism vs. egoism. We could point to a lot of common things. Neither think we should go on killing sprees. Neither think we should steal from the poor. Neither thinks we should kill ourselves for no reason. Etc. But the two have radically different views of what we should do. If you focus on "what they have in common", they may look like they're the same thing. But they're not. If you look at what they say you should do, the change is huge.

I would be a little more specific with my examples of government, but anarchists have a real hard time explaining exactly what they mean. I could say:

A minarchists would be happy when a rapist was captured by the police.
1.) An anarchist would be angry because the rapist has the right to "opt out".
2.) The anarchist would claim that the police is being "imperialistic".
3.) The anarchist would claim that government was the root cause of the rape, and the rapist is just responding to government imperialism.
4.) The anarchist would claim that the government is morally worse than the rapist, because the government should know better.
5.) The anarchist would claim the government is as bad as the rapist, since they don't allow a free market in violence (er...protection).
6.) The anarchist would claim that it's a disaster because in times of crisis like hunting this rapist, government tends to gain power at the expense of liberty.

Etc. I wouldn't take any of this too seriously. But then again, I don't take anarchism too seriously.

Post 110

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 4:57pm

Let me tackle this from a different angle, since it would be amusing to me at least.

Anarchists and Communists should work together. Although there are slight differences on their conclusions, they have far more in common. I would say they agree on 98% of things, and only disagree on a mere 2%. Let me provide examples.

Both believe the government shouldn't be involved in the money supply (commies don't believe in money).
Both believe the government shouldn't regulate the stock exchange (commies don't believe in stock exchange).
Both believe the government should not enforce a religion on the people.
Both believe the government should not steal from the poor to give to the rich.
Both believe the government should not enforce contract laws.
If property is nine-tenths of the law, then both agree about 90% of the law.
Neither believe that the government can take a person's home if they pay compensation (communists don't believe they need to pay compensation).
Neither believe the state should be involved in marriage or divorce (not in Communist theory, anyway).
Neither believe the government should have environmental regulations.
Neither believe in white-collar crimes.
Neither believe the government can invade your home with a search warrant (communists don't need one).
Neither believe in taxation.

See...commies and anarchists are pretty much the same. Sure, they have different reasons for coming to their conclusions, and little things like individual rights are not addressed here, but those are minor corner cases that lots of people disagree on.

Post 111

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 8:09pm

Joseph-

I don't know what kind of market anarchists (or are you leaving libertarian world and including left anarchists?) you've been talking to. Assuming you even do have a real example who's given the oppositions you list to police apprehending a rapist, he is no more representative of anarchocapitalists than someone who wants to preemptively nuke China is representative of Objectivists.

"Since we only think the government should do some thing, it stands to reason that you can come up with far more things that government shouldn't do."

Hence my view. Focusing on your issues is the 2%, and will yield much contention even among Oists. Do you and the vast majority of Objectivists not have disagreements on the roles of restitution/retribution(/deterrence)? Alliances? Whether US citizens should get US protection when traveling overseas? (and so on) Do you consider fellow Objectivists who may disagree with you on any such policy points as still generally on the same side as you or not?

Post 112

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 8:45pm

Glad you're amusing yourself. If anybody actually takes that seriously let me know.

Some days I'm amazed how the all-too-common Objectivist obsession with differences over commonalities has only resulted in ARI, TOC, SOLO, etc. instead of its apparent logical conclusion of thousands of organizations, each size 1. I'm not giving up hope yet for us playing well with others though. If say Republicans can tie together support from such ridiculously disparate groups as religious right, Liberty Caucus, and Log Cabin Republicans - where only some hot-button issue suffices for them to ignore vast differences - there must be some way to bring together more supporters of individual life, liberty and property, who currently only reject each other from some hot-button difference.

Post 113

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 9:23pm

Aaron,

I think Joe's point, and certainly mine, is that the differences between anarchists and minimal governmentalists are not just "2%." They are many, and stem from the very definitions and meanings that the warring factions attach to terms like "rights," "freedom," "non-initiation of force," "government," etc.

These fundamental philosophical and definitional differences pervade a huge number of issues. Just the matter of national borders and jurisdictions affects a host of specific issues -- immigration, trade, international travel via oceans and air, environmental problems, etc. So does national defense (treaties, alliances, sanctions, pre-emptive defense, etc.) To dispute the legitimacy of the nation-state is thus no small matter; the impacts are pervasive, and have life-and-death consequences for millions.

Similarly, intellectual property is not just "one" issue: its implications pervade virtually all property rights questions, since all property rights have, as their source, human creativity applied to matter. If we are at war over intellectual property rights, we are also at war over the rights to everything that is broadcast or published, and over the patent rights to every product put in the marketplace. Do you consider that vast array of issues to be a single minor "difference of opinion"?

Law enforcement, arrest, subpoena, juries, the court system, sentencing, appeals, punishment -- there are millions of such actions taken each year, and they have life-and-death consequences. Do you really think that disputing the legitimacy of the entire legal process is just "one difference of opinion"?

I could go on and on. But the point is this: differences in even one principle impact hundreds or thousands of concretes. To differ over anarchism vs. limited government in politics is a disagreement as fundamental as disagreeing over honesty vs. lying in ethics. That "single" disagreement has countless specific impacts.

Only by obliterating the principles underlying these differences can you view each political-economic issue in its own isolated bubble, as a single concrete unrelated to any other. Only by this concrete-bound, unprincipled way of viewing each issue as discrete and isolated can you conclude that "we" agree on 98% of all issues.

Well, "we" don't. Most of the anarchists understand this. It's time that Objectivists did, too.

Post 114

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 9:57pm

I didn't think to multiply my examples by the millions of people and actions affected by minimum wage laws, social security, drug laws, etc.

Same question for you as for Joe: You are going to disagree with some Objectivists on many of the difficult specific issues you have been noting; at what point do you consider even fellow Objectivists on your side or not?

Post 115

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 10:23pm

Quoth Robert Bidinotto:

-----
I think Joe's point, and certainly mine, is that the differences between anarchists and minimal governmentalists are not just "2%." They are many, and stem from the very definitions and meanings that the warring factions attach to terms like "rights," "freedom," "non-initiation of force," "government," etc.
-----

I am very much in agreement with this point, although I think some of the language conventions are making it difficult to get across.

"A difference of 2%" is simply not adequately descriptive of the difference between minarchist and anarchist ideas, and it would not necessarily be adequately descriptive even if Mr. Bidinotto is incorrect in his particulars.

The "2%" standard is just the wrong measuring device. It's not a matter of relative differences in certain measurements ("this apple weighs 5% more than that one; the other apple is 2% smaller in diameter at its widest point"). It is a matter of essential differences that make many comparisons meaningless ("One of these things is not like the other. This is an apple. That's a locomotive. Ah! But the locomotive is red, so it's not that different from the apple, is it?" -- but it is).

Minarchists believe that the state is necessary and acceptable.

Anarchists believe that the state is unnecessary and unacceptable.

This may or may not have the particular effects on the particular interpretations of the particular terms that Mr. Bidinotto specifies, but it's damn well going to have some kind of effect, don't you think?

There's no reasonable prospect of some kind of orderly, uninterrupted procession, arm in arm, toward "smaller government," until one day the two factions amicably part ways, one electing to stop where they are and the other to keep marching. At some point (or, more likely, many points) prior to society reaching the "minimum government" optimum of minarchists, there will be strategic issues on which particular anarchist goals that go beyond particular minarchist goals, or particular minarchist goals that frustrate particular anarchist goals, become germane -- and the two factions will simply not be able to work together.

For that matter, even if the "2% comparison" was valid, a lot can happen in 2% of something. If you don't believe me, measure 100 paces from the edge of a cliff and draw a line on the ground. Then walk forward from that line ... for 102 paces. Please set up a camcorder so that the rest of us can benefit from your observations.

Of course, even such essential differences don't preclude alliances of convenience. Anarchists can certainly work with minarchists on particular issues. After all, the US worked with the USSR to defeat Hitler. We just have to be smarter than the US was and make sure the minarchists don't fuck us over at Yalta.

Tom Knapp
(Edited by Thomas L. Knapp
on 5/15, 10:26pm)

Post 116

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 10:59pm

Robert, great post. You read my point clearly. We can't look at similar conclusions and say we agree when our reasons are completely different. My comparison of anarchists to communists gave an obvious example of this mistake. Anyone who thinks anarchists and communists are "agreeing" needs to rethink what that word means. Looking at just the final conclusions, without recognition of the reasons or scope behind them, is glossing over radical differences.

Aaron, just exchange "terrorist" for "rapist", and it might sound more familiar.

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 5/15, 11:00pm)

Post 117

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 5:52am

Never encountered a market anarchist who is unhappy when a terrorist is caught, just ones who recognize that not every foreigner captured or killed is a terrorist. I'll grant you the point #4 though, an obvious slap concerning the Dawkins Osama/Bush thread.

"Minarchists believe that the state is necessary and acceptable.
Anarchists believe that the state is unnecessary and unacceptable."

Perhaps it's just been unusual that I've encountered people not enamored with such a dichotomy - minarchists who recognize ethical competing arbitration agencies might arise, and anarchists who think ancap would be more stable yet would be happy if a night watchman state is what they got.

"There's no reasonable prospect of some kind of orderly, uninterrupted procession, arm in arm, toward "smaller government," until one day the two factions amicably part ways, one electing to stop where they are and the other to keep marching."

Sure there would be libertarian pissing contests even before reaching minimal government; heck, there'd be plenty inside an Objectivist Party. I'm puzzled though why many people want them all to unnecessarily happen on day one, ensuring that the factions remain small, scattered and impotent.

"Anarchists can certainly work with minarchists on particular issues. After all, the US worked with the USSR to defeat Hitler. We just have to be smarter than the US was and make sure the minarchists don't fuck us over at Yalta."

Jaded though it is, I take your statement as a slight beacon of hope.

Post 118

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 8:01am

Quoth Ryan:

-----
""Minarchists believe that the state is necessary and acceptable.
Anarchists believe that the state is unnecessary and unacceptable."

Perhaps it's just been unusual that I've encountered people not enamored with such a dichotomy - minarchists who recognize ethical competing arbitration agencies might arise, and anarchists who think ancap would be more stable yet would be happy if a night watchman state is what they got.
-----

Actually, I fit the latter description. I'd much rather have a "night watchman" state than what we have now.

I'm trying to think of an analogy that covers this, and I can't think of a good one, so I'll go with a bad one:

You and I are driving in a car with two steering wheels, both of which are connected to the steering system. You want to go to McDonald's. I want to go to Wendy's. We careen down the road, each trying to get the car to where we, as individuals want it to go.

If we end up at McDonald's instead of Wendy's, I won't starve; I'll get by with a Big Mac Value Meal instead of a Triple Cheese Combo. But I'd much rather eat at Wendy's, and I recognize that there's greater potential for bad things to happen along the way when two people try to ride in the same vehicle while both try to steer it in different directions.

Yep. Pretty bad analogy. Sorry. Best I could do.

"Sure there would be libertarian pissing contests even before reaching minimal government; heck, there'd be plenty inside an Objectivist Party. I'm puzzled though why many people want them all to unnecessarily happen on day one, ensuring that the factions remain small, scattered and impotent."

I didn't say I wanted it to happen that way. I just said that it likely would happen that way, and that I agree with Mr. Bidinotto that there are essential differences which probably mandate that it will happen that way. If I had what I wanted, all y'all minarchists would extract crania from recta and renounce statism. Failing that, see you at Yalta ;-)

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 119

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 7:34pm