RoR: Forum

Joe,

Posts #90 and #93 are excellent!

Post 101

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:16pm

What Steve said.

Ed

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:43pm

Dean: "The government being unjust does not imply that anarchy is the solution."

Agreed. Just because something works poorly doesn't imply that it isn't the optimal solution given the constraints faced. Sometimes all one has is a choice between several bad alternatives.

However, all governments currently in existence being unjust to a greater or lesser degree
strongly suggests that alternative possibilities ought to be debated in a search for a less imperfect system, and that anarcho-capitalism should not be summarily dismissed, since the debate between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists might expose the weaknesses in each POV, leading to a more optimal solution being developed.

Thus, the government being unjust also does not imply that anarchy is NOT the solution, either.

Post 103

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:46pm

Yet we can point to just about every instance of anarchy that has occurred as an unjust system. Somalia being one. The problem is that you don't want to apply the same standard of evaluation to anarchy as you want to do with government. If you want to look at history as a guide, then don't start ignoring instances of anarchy while you're at it.

Post 104

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:54pm

Bill: "No, the government that we have now is statist, but it doesn't have to be. The answer is to persuade people that the proper function of government is the protection and defense of their rights. It's not an easy sell, but if you can persuade people to dismantle the entire government, you can certainly persuade them to limit its function to the protection of their rights. The latter is a lot more feasible than selling them on the idea of no government whatsoever!"

I agree that eliminating some statism is easier to do than eliminating all statism. The question is whether some statism in the form of a state run monopoly of force in the law would more effectively protect rights -- whether it is a necessary evil -- than a competition between legal codes.

"Besides, what leads you to believe that anarchism will eliminate or reduce the initiation of physical force, when by design, it would sanction its initiation, because it would allow conflicting bodies of law to operate within the same geographical area? If one of these bodies of law respected individual rights, the other would necessarily violate them."

If everyone voluntarily subscribed to the particular code of law they favored, then it is true that those who chose, say, socialism as their code of law would allow initiations of force among themselves -- but it would be a VOLUNTARY choice to subject themselves to that. Are you saying people should be prohibited from making that choice for themselves?

If not, the only possible area of injustice would be in the interaction between individuals with differing subscriptions to codes of law, much of which would be avoided as such individuals would generally refuse to interact with each other. And, by settling in advance how such interactions between conflicting codes of law would be resolved, people would know in advance what would happen if they chose to interact with others with differing codes of law.

Post 105

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 1:27pm

Jim,

In post #102 you have still missed what Dean and Joe said. They pointed out that you were pointing at Hawaii and in effect saying, "See, we should adopt anarchy because of how bad this is." That simply doesn't follow.

And when you point at many governments and say, in effect, "See, we should adopt anarchy because of how bad all of these are." It still doesn't follow.
----------

For your convenience, I've quoted Joe's entire post below.

"Jim, you seem to think that arguing against the current government is an argument in favor of anarchy. But that assumes two things that aren't true.

First, it assumes those are the only two choices, so discrediting one only leaves the other. That's not true. Those arguing for a minimal government are not arguing for the status quo.

The second false assumption is that the arguments used against the current government don't apply to anarchy. If you complain about governments being corrupt as proof against minarchy, than we can point to the violence in Somalia (as one example) as proof against anarchy. If you argue that governments get corrupted by there power, we can argue that that more than equally applies in an anarchy. If you argue a large government requires taxation, we could argue that 50 smaller governments would also require taxation. If you argue democracy fails because the people seem to want to wield force against each other, we could point out that anarchy would have the same issue, without any of the checks on that abuse that a constitutional republic has.

Too much of the anarchist argument is based on the false premise that arguing against one thing is arguing for another. It permits them to ignore the glaring flaws in their proposed system."

Post 106

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 2:47pm

Twelve Things that Anarchists choose to ignore

1. Minarchism is not statism.

"Statism" has a proper meaning - please use the term correctly.

2. In the absence of minarchy you can not have FREE markets.

With either too much or too little law, rights are not fully protected.

3. There are two kinds of competition.

Competition where one or more party gets to initiate force, and those systems where that is prohibited.
A FREE market, by definition is free of the initiation of force and competion will benefit man.
Systems that permit the initiation of force are evil and competition in that system is like a struggle to exist in under jungle law, or thugs killing thugs - it does not support human flourishing.

4. Competing legal systems guarantee the violation of rights.

Without the monopoly of a set of objective laws based upon individual rights, there is nothing to stop the use of initiated force in the competition. This means that you do not have a free market and you will never evolve an improved legal sysem, and there will be violations of rights as the systems clash.

5. If there isn't a monopoly on a set of laws in a geographical area, there will be violations of rights (see #4)

6. Because some governments are evil, does not mean anarchy is the answer.

7. Because power has corrupted people under government does not mean power under competing governments wouldn't corrupt as badly. (actually, it will be worse. See #4)

8. Because there are degrees of unjustness in governments around the world and through history does not mean anarchy is the answer.

9. Anarcho-Capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

Under anarchy, capitalism would be dead. Capitalism requires the protection of rights, which requires objective laws based upon individual rights, which must be uniformly enforced, which requires minarchy.

10. Arguments for minarchism and for anarchy are both theoretical and the same people would be engaging in economic and political actions under either system.

Anarchists often seem to think that no matter what kind of government we have, it will become the tool of bad people. Yet their proposed competing governments are magically free of this and would not be coopted by bad people.

11. Anarchists tend to see the use of force and the enforcement of law as services just the same as if they were shoes or dental care.

They are categorically different. All products and services that are or could be a chosen transaction are in a totally different category from those actions that do not require mutual agreement.

12. Joe's point that there is a fundamental need for a central source for validating and regulating the use of force (because it is unique and not like other products and services).

This is the origin of government as such. This is the primary need that has been so badly subverted in many instances and through out history. This is the need that was given such a fantastic start by the founding fathers. Throwing out this need, pretending it doesn't exist, just because it has not been done perfectly yet makes no sense. Because they don't have all surgical techniques perfected and because all surgeons are less than perfectly competent, do we toss all surgery out the window?

Post 107

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 3:25pm

Steve: "Jim,

In post #102 you have still missed what Dean and Joe said. They pointed out that you were pointing at Hawaii and in effect saying, "See, we should adopt anarchy because of how bad this is." That simply doesn't follow."

Well, no, that's a strawman argument that I didn't make. I wasn't "in effect" saying that. I was using the example of government I'm most familiar with, pointing out its problems, pointing out that if you support a monopoly of law then this is a situation that in reality can and does arise from an initially minarchic situation, and then, in the post below from another thread, pointing out how one A/C alternative would work.

Do you think this alternative would work better or worse than the current situation in Hawaii? Or do you think such a system is literally not achieveable at all?

If is really is achievable and better (which is a REALLY low bar to clear), then the only argument is whether a minarchic alternative would work better than an A/C alternative.

So, do you support my contention that both minarchy and anarcho-capitalism as outlined below would be better than the current situation in Hawaii? If so, then you have conceded that at least under certain circumstances, an monopoly of law can produce worse outcomes than competition of legal codes.

***

Bill: "I asked you whether you believed in competition between different legal systems within the same geographical area (David Friedman's conception) or competition in the enforcement of a uniform legal system within the same geographical area. This not a trick question; it is quite clear and capable of being answered."

OK, thanks for restating the question.

I believe that competition generally leads to better outcomes than monopolies, and thus David Friedman's conception, competition between different legal systems within the same geographical area, can lead to better results, if each competing legal system applies only to its own members when they interact among themselves, and when the competing systems have agreed in advance to how to handle interactions between their members.

Thought experiment: Imagine that in Hawaii, there are four would-be competing legal systems regarding economic issues in a geographic region -- Anarcho-Capitalist (AC), Minarchist (M), Social Democrats (SD), and Communist (C). The rough percentage of the populace for each viewpoint: 1% AC, 24% M, 40% SD, 35% C.

If one insisted on a single legal monopoly on the law for such disparate viewpoints, as is the current case, you'd have a war of all against the ballot box. In Hawaii, the real world result is a legal system that is a mishmash of SD and C thinking, with the two factions at war at the legislature where combined they control 90% of the seats, with just enough hobbled free enterprise allowed to exist to serve as a cash cow for the majority party's social welfare schemes, and some of the highest tax rates in the nation. Both the anarcho-capitalists and the minarchists get royally screwed, while the Social Democrats and the Communists are each kind of disgruntled that they don't control all the levers of power, but are somewhat placated by all the wealth they confiscate from the ACs and the Ms.

This is what Bill appears to be advocating in favor of. Let me know if that is not the case.

Now, let's replace this with a competing legal system for economic issues. Economic interactions between two people both subscribing to the same legal system for economic issues are governed by the rules of that legal system. Economic interactions between two people subscribing between different economic systems default to the numerically superior group (unless the two people mutually agreed upon one of the systems), so that * initially * the SD rules apply to interactions with C, M, and A subscribers, the C rules apply to interactions with M and A subscribers, the M rules apply to interactions with A subscribers. So, for example, Costco might make acceptance of a membership application contingent upon C and SD legal system subscribers voluntarily agreeing to a M legal system. And finally, no one can be compelled to interact with anyone else -- one can shun people from other legal regimes and refuse to do business with them, and no one can impose taxes on people from other legal regimes, other than taxes applied to voluntary financial transaction between people from these differing regimes.

I'll advocate for this system over the status quo in Hawaii, since under it, I would shun any business sporting a SD or C legal regime posted at their door. My effective tax rate would plummet, as the Communist and Social Democratic social welfare schemes would have to be financed among their own subscribers plus the few minarchists masochistic enough to do business with them.

I suspect that, pretty soon, the M and AC legal regimes for economics would become the predominant schemes, as only die-hard liberals would pay the prices the SD and C stores would have to charge.

Post 108

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 3:51pm

Well, no, that's a strawman argument that I didn't make. I wasn't "in effect" saying that. I was using the example of government I'm most familiar with, pointing out its problems, pointing out that if you support a monopoly of law then this is a situation that in reality can and does arise from an initially minarchic situation, and then, in the post below from another thread, pointing out how one A/C alternative would work.

Of course you choose the government you live under, but not ones that have been in a state of anarchy like Somalia. You say a minarchy government is likely to have problems, yet you don't grant this likelihood to anarchy. At every step of the way, you never use the same standard of evaluation to anarchy as you do to minarchy.

Post 109

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 5:47pm

Joseph Rowlands in #98: Michael, you want to treat the free market like a religion.

Steve Wolfer in # 99: Michael, You completely ignored the arguments that Joe made. ... What are we to think? That you consider us idiots? Or, that you don't care if what you say is nonsense? Or that you don't even realize what nonsense you put out?

Joseph and Steve and John have all ignored the facts I have cited all along. these past five years. I cite times, dates, places, and names. I cite papers. I cite events. I cite from Department of Justice studies and Reason magazine and academic journals.

I regarded Joseph's "What if..." as exactly of the same merit as a statist who demands to know who will take care of the poor in a free market.

Moreover, "What if Person A or Company B or Agency C... " never gets us anywhere specifically and exactly because they are not real. I point you to Stuart Hayashi's excellent essay on metaphysical impossibilities.

You show me some Protection Agency A whose Client Mr. B claims that his neighbor Mir. C stole his wallet and we can move forward with real cases. I have worked in private security and I assure you that I never met a private guard willing to shoot another guard over someone else's wallet.

So, I refuse to discuss nonsense.

If you want to discuss facts, fine.

As for the "applied anarchy of cops on the street" I only couched the obvious empirical facts in the lingo of this discussion to lay bare the shallowness of the argument you put forward. I apologize if you missed the point.

I do not regard the free market as a religion, but as a science. I provide empirical evidence to support my theories and my theories explain the facts. If there is a religion, it is faith in the limited state, as an improvement over the unlimited state, just as The One True God is an improvement over the Olympians.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/29, 5:57pm)

Post 110

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 6:43pm

John, Somalia is not an anarcho-capitalist society where people can choose to subscribe or not between competing codes of law, and competing private protection agencies, and competing legal resolution services, and so on.

Somalia is a bunch of warlord-controlled territories -- basically, loosely ruled tribal governments -- and, yet, arguably most people are better off in Somalia than they were under the previous central government.

When you start from really, really bad, getting to merely awful is an improvement. Starting points matter. The GDP per capita in Mainland China still sucks, but it's way better than it was a few decades ago due to the central government backing off a bit on the reins of power.

And, the historical record shows Ireland and Iceland spent time under something approaching anarcho-capitalism. Are you contending that those societies were awful places to live, relative to the central governments of that time?

I am not arguing that anarcho-capitalism is, or ever will be, a utopia. I'm also not arguing that A/C can't decay into something pretty nasty, similar to the way the extreme minarchism under the Articles of Confederation morphed into a much more intrusive statism (albeit arguably still the least statist country in the world). The argument, rather, is over whether what I consider two of the best forms of governance, far better than what we have now -- minarchism and A/C -- are both viable, and if so, which is preferable.

The argument here seems to be that A/C won't work at all, and so I ask -- compared to what? Compared to the monopoly of the code of law in North Korea? Compared to the statism in the current U.S. government? Or just compared to a theoretical minarchism that also doesn't exist anywhere in the world right now?

Post 111

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 6:59pm

Jim:

John, Somalia is not an anarcho-capitalist society where people can choose to subscribe or not between competing codes of law.....Somalia is a bunch of warlord-controlled territories -- basically, loosely ruled tribal governments -

You don't see the contradiction in your statements here?

This is basically your argument:

"There should be no government because we can point to examples of governments abusing the rights of citizens. Your proposal for a government limited to only defining and sanctioning proper retaliatory force should be dismissed because governments don't do this. (I wonder what the Ancient Athenians would've made of such arguments when they proposed for the first time in history they be ruled by something other than a monarch? 'Don't bother Solon! We've never tried Democracy before so it can't possibly work!') There are no instances of anarchy to look at in order to rule out anarchy as something acceptable, because I can just keep conveniently redefining those instances of anarchy as something other than anarchy. But I will still cling to anarchy as the appropriate model for us to aspire to, even though I have no real world examples to show as my reason for believing that while I use real world examples of government for reasons in not believing in minarchy."

Again, you don't really care about using any consistent standards of evaluation. You say your idea of government has never been tried, well neither has ours.

(Edited by John Armaos on 4/29, 7:05pm)

Post 112

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 7:39pm

Jim,

I'm curious about your last post (110). You claim Somalia isn't anarcho-capitalist. You claim it isn't because people can't choose different protection agencies, etc. This is a common statement by anarchists, but I've never seen it defended in a valid way. People in fact could choose a different protection agency, just as they could choose to form their own government here in the US. The problem in the US is that the US government wouldn't allow it or recognize it. The problem in Somalia (to the best of my knowledge, which is admittedly lacking in this area), is similar in that the existing "protection agencies" (or warlords) won't respect your right to simply start your own or join another.

Clearly it doesn't fit the anarcho-capitalist ideal, but in terms of definition, it's not clear why these don't count as anarcho-capitalist societies. Is an essential feature (as far as you are concerned) of anarcho-capitalism that every protection agency must respect the right of individuals to come and go as they see fit?

The problem with this view is that it is utopian in its definition. It's like defining communism as the system where everyone lives equally and in abundance and happy lives and there is no crime or drug abuse or any other problems. Then, when people get slaughtered by the millions, the communists say "Well, that isn't a real instance". If you're defining it by the wish-for outcome of the system, it's too easy to say these instances just don't count! It would be like saying that under minarchy, we would never have any crime and everyone would live fulfilling lives. Maybe we might hope or even expect this to happen, but adding it to the definition just makes it a mythical beast.

Instead, we can describe the systems. We can describe incentives. We can point out epistemological difficulties. We can focus on the structure.

Under a minimal government, we can focus on the nature of the Constitution, separation of powers, voting procedures, trial by jury, etc. And still, at the end of the day, we have to recognize that the government doesn't exist apart from the people, so there must be some basic agreement among the majority of people in order for a minarchy to exist and stay minimal. But we also have to deal with real problems, like what happens if some of the people want to commit crimes. We don't get to assume utopian conditions. We have to discuss things like police, courts, trials, evidence, uncertainty in judgment, etc.

We expect a similar standard for anarcho-capitalism. The nature of the "leave it to the market" description allows you to avoid many of the details, although as many of us have argued you can't just assume a free market in these areas. You'd need to go further and show how the incentives line up to encourage certain kinds of outcomes. You also would need to deal with the problems. If you have rogue protection agencies, what mechanisms do you have to protect the system from them? You want to define anarcho-capitalism to not have these problems, but you have no actual structure to prevent them (a minarchist might suggest that you have a ultra-minimal government that forces all protection agencies to respect the right of their clients to come and go, but that would be minarchy again!). So if you don't have a mechanism to enforce it, then how can you say it is an essential feature? There's no obligation that these protection agencies will stop a rogue protection agency, or that they won't get destroyed one by one and consumed by it. You could try to argue that the incentives under anarchy will always lead to preventing this kind of problem, but all of human history argues otherwise (certainly enough to refute the idea that it is a necessary or even probable outcome).

So if you don't like Somalia as an example of anarcho-capitalism, it sounds like you need some inherent feature of anarcho-capitalism that prevents that sort of behavior. You could for instance suggest that all protection agencies must hold this one requirement above all else, and combine forces to crack down on any misbehaving agency (but once again, you'd have a minimal government). You could have a separate agency that enforces this. But if there is no such mechanism, then I don't think you validly object to calling Somalia an example of anarcho-capitalism. You would be trying to define it by the (wished for) results, and not by the system/process/mechanisms. If you had a mechanism requirement, and the mechanism was absent in Somalia (or the US), then you could say those aren't real examples (just as a minarchist would say that a government restricted by a Constitution would stop being a minarchy if the Constitution was ignored or discarded). But without such a mechanism, there's no way to differentiate Somalia from your anarcho-capitalist system in terms of minimum requirements.

Post 113

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 8:07pm

Michael, the problem with most of your posts is that they are all nonsense heaped on nonsense. Most of the time I think you're just saying things to get people riled up. In this last post, it's hard to take any one of your statements seriously. One the one hand, you're promoting a theoretical system. On the other hand, you're arguing that we shouldn't talk about hypotheticals because they aren't real! If you haven't seen scenario in real life, you can't deal with it (this is the philosophy of pragmatism, rejecting theory and only dealing with what you've experienced).

You go on to make statements about security services in the context of government, and imply that everything would work exactly the same without that government forcing everyone to follow the same sets of laws. The context-dropping is so flagrant that the statement can't be taken seriously. You also use a ridiculous example of stolen wallet and shooting. Of course a private security guard isn't going to shoot people for theft! They'd be arrested in a heartbeat by the real police! That fact that you haven't seen it is evidence that minarchy works, not that anarchy would. Assuming the same consequences when the incentives and mechanisms have changed is just wishful thinking.

I'm expected to take this seriously? When discussing theoretical systems of government, we have to be very diligent in using logic and checking our assumptions along the way. We have to focus hard on what things will change, what stays the same, and way. We have to understand the human needs and epistemological issues. We have to make sure our methodology is sound.

Your arguments are not just wrong, they're shoddy. People who are wrong may still be worth reading, as there is likely elements of truth and some subtle errors in reasoning that may enlighten us if we identify them. But shoddy works are just a waste of time.

Post 114

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 9:35pm

John: "This is basically your argument:

"There should be no government because we can point to examples of governments abusing the rights of citizens. Your proposal for a government limited to only defining and sanctioning proper retaliatory force should be dismissed because governments don't do this. (I wonder what the Ancient Athenians would've made of such arguments when they proposed for the first time in history they be ruled by something other than a monarch? 'Don't bother Solon! We've never tried Democracy before so it can't possibly work!'"

Perhaps I have not communicated my POV clearly, since you seem to have a somewhat different view of what I've been trying to say than the POV I've been advocating. My apologies for my lack of clarity.

Let me rewrite the above so it comports to what I actually do think:

"I feel that the best form of governance should be no government, if government is defined as a monopoly of force in a defined geographic region, though I strongly support moving in that direction by going to a more and more minarchist government. My preference for no formal governance, or if that can't be achieved at the current time, a considerably more limited government, arises from the ample record of governments repeatedly abusing the rights of citizens, and from the observed correlation between less government and a more free and prosperous citizenry. Your proposal for a government limited to only defining and sanctioning proper retaliatory force should be lauded, encouraged, and carried as far as possible toward the goal of eventually eliminating formal government entirely and replacing it with private alternatives. (I wonder what the Ancient Athenians would've made of the argument by some minarchists that anarcho-capitalism isn't just less effective at achieving liberty than minarchy, but actually literally impossible to implement, when they proposed for the first time in history they be ruled by something other than a monarch? 'Don't bother Solon! We've never tried Democracy before so it can't possibly work!)

Post 115

Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 10:10pm