Question for all small govt/minarchist ppl (2 Viewers)

[volition]

1. Under your proposed small state, how are the people supposed to keep the state from expanding?
2. Are you aware of any countrys govt in the past that has actually stayed small over the long run?

My argument is: Govts are too dangerous to be allowed to exist and there is no way to actually keep them small once you've given up all power to them.

 

[katie_tully]

I don't get the question. Is this carried on from another thread? If so which one so I can go look.

 

[volition]

I don't get the question. Is this carried on from another thread? If so which one so I can go look.

Its one of my anarcho-capitalist questions, designed to make the minarchists on the board think about whether its even possible that a govt could stay small without expanding.

The minarchists and I have a common hatred of big govts, and I'm playing on this hatred

 

[banco55]

One way to keep government relatlively smallis to have a constitutional clause that says that the current government can only borrow during its term if a
two thirds majority in each house approves it and they have to approve a certain amount. Plus supressing voter turnout is also important with regards to keeping government small. If you can get government spending below 35% of GDP in a western democracy you are doing well.

 

[circusmind]

My argument is: Govts are too dangerous to be allowed to exist and there is no way to actually keep them small once you've given up all power to them.

You don't give up all power to them. You write a constitution which strictly limits the bounds of government jurisdiction and power.

Governments may be dangerous, but at least they are fairly civil and accountable in the West. The warlords/feudal corporations/whatever which would fill the void left by the state would not be so friendly.

 

[_dhj_]

1. Under your proposed small state, how are the people supposed to keep the state from expanding?
2. Are you aware of any countrys govt in the past that has actually stayed small over the long run?

My argument is: Govts are too dangerous to be allowed to exist and there is no way to actually keep them small once you've given up all power to them.

If anything, these questions are logically problematic.

The only way to achieve 'anarcho capitalism' is to first reach the state of minarchism. If minarchism fails to keep the government small, anarcho capitalism cannot be achieved. Your implied contention is that anarcho-capitalism is somehow a method of keeping government small. But anarcho-capitalism by definition has no government, and so the question is whether it can be achieved rather than whether it keeps government from expanding. By the same token, minarchism is by definition a state of minimal government, and so it faces the same problem - it is a state of things, not a solution to things.

The idea that 'socialism is the first step to communism' is analogous to the idea that minarchism is the first step to anarcho-capitalism. Minarchism, like socialism is somewhat achievable. Anarcho-capitalism, like communism seems to me to be states of things that are unachievable given human nature and 'frailties'. The step from socialism to communism is unachievable because a large government is hardly likely to dissolve. The anarcho-capitalist assumption is that a minarchist state will finally privatise law enforcement and dispute resolution. But that step does not conform with the liberal notion of property ownership. The privatisation of dispute resolution will instead kill the notion of property ownership. By pushing the justifying ideal of a system to its absolute ideological limits - the ideal being 'individual freedom', the purpose of the system - that being the protection of bourgeois property rights from arbitrary interference is absolutely compromised. It is naive to believe in the merely the justification, but fail to acknowledge the purpose.

On another note the similarity between anarcho-capitalism and communism are striking. Both attempt to justify the 'society' (if we can call it that) without a government, without a positive force.

 

[volition]

One way to keep government relatively small is to have a constitutional clause that says that the current government can only borrow during its term if a two thirds majority in each house approves it and they have to approve a certain amount.

If govt has legal monopoly over currency, then it doesn't even have to borrow, it can just print money and just kind of 'steal value' from us via inflation.

Cos when it prints the money, our currency still has its full value. Inflation takes time to take effect, so by the time it cycles through the economy, inflation has happened and we've lost 'value' if you get me, but the government still got to use it back when the newly created money had 'full value' for themselves.

What's stopping the govt from just taxing more instead of borrowing anyway?

2/3 majority in each house doesn't really do much to stem the flow of govt growing too large. Look at America, in some respects, constitutionally they were supposed to be very much like a minarchist state, and it only took them 200 or so years to become a massive govt.

You don't give up all power to them. You write a constitution which strictly limits the bounds of government jurisdiction and power.

Well all the politicians have to do then, is wait til some mad 'emergency'(like maybe a war, which in turn is more likely to happen with govts) to get the public to vote them extra powers, to change the constitution, whatevers necessary. Once again, look at the USA, their constitution is for very minimal govt interference, but the govt has just grown and grown and grown.

And you really are giving up a LOT of power when you give the govt legal monopoly over the use of force, creation of laws, currency.

Governments may be dangerous, but at least they are fairly civil and accountable in the West. The warlords/feudal corporations/whatever which would fill the void left by the state would not be so friendly.

As for govts being civil and accountable, thats just cos our masters are nice to us now But seriously, look at all the scandals/bad stuff happening now(AWB, police brutality, gitmo, torture, the defence force can't even account for their own assets properly so somethin dodgy there too etc). I suspect they'll be getting away with more and more over time, and we will be powerless to stop them.

As for your warlord objection, I've been through this before but I'll briefly cover it: at least anyone wanting to go to war would have to pay for it themselves (unlike current system where politicians decide and we pay). But seriously, this contention that all of a sudden people will become violent is not grounded in any logical fear (think of your everyday interactions with people, are they violent? the govts everyday interactions all involve at least the threat of violence), because it will always be to their own self-interest not to go to war in a privatised system. Fear of retaliation, emotional discomfort, reputation loss and increased costs all make it not worth their while.

The only way to achieve 'anarcho capitalism' is to first reach the state of minarchism.

Where'd you get this from? I never said that was the only way to get there. In fact, I think the best way to get there on a large scale is for the state to abolish itself all in one go, rather than slowly stepping down involvement. Now I agree, that may be hard to do but I consider this an evolutionary thing rather than a revolutionary thing. I'm not planning to go and violently bring the govt down, and I'm not going to even bother trying to work 'within the system' to remove the system because I realise the futility of that.

It may be the case that we just have to wait til the govt reaches communism levels of interference, it'll inevitably crash and burn, because this system isn't sustainable. We're seeing it now with the USA and their $9 trillion debt, govts grow too big and die. I'm kind of hoping that anarcho-capitalism will spring up from the rubble, once people have realised that they don't need govts to do anything for them. Which is why I'm trying to show people why govts are immoral and unnecessary, so that they won't stand for anyone trying to create a govt when the chance for anarcho-capitalism comes. So contrary to what you said about minarchism being necessary, it might actually be the case that we have to wait for communism to fail (again), before anarcho-capitalism can happen.

One other way to reach anarcho-capitalism (on a smaller scale) would be to just secede. Find some land or an island, and create your own anarcho-capitalist community.

Your implied contention is that anarcho-capitalism is somehow a method of keeping government small.

Just a minor correction, anarcho-capitalism is supposed to stop govts popping up in the first place, rather than keeping them small.

 

[circusmind]

Well all the politicians have to do then, is wait til some mad 'emergency'(like maybe a war, which in turn is more likely to happen with govts) to get the public to vote them extra powers, to change the constitution, whatevers necessary. Once again, look at the USA, their constitution is for very minimal govt interference, but the govt has just grown and grown and grown.

And the exact same thing will happen under your anarcho-capitalist system. A band of pirates/ninjas/whatever is roaming around and people will happily give up their liberty to gain some security. It would be the same old social contract, just with a plethora of 'private' states providing security. Yay feudalism!

As for govts being civil and accountable, thats just cos our masters are nice to us now But seriously, look at all the scandals/bad stuff happening now(AWB, police brutality, gitmo, torture, the defence force can't even account for their own assets properly so somethin dodgy there too etc). I suspect they'll be getting away with more and more over time, and we will be powerless to stop them.

Powerless? Hardly. Our system builds in accountability, flawed though it may be. That's more than your system offers.

As for your warlord objection, I've been through this before but I'll briefly cover it: at least anyone wanting to go to war would have to pay for it themselves (unlike current system where politicians decide and we pay). But seriously, this contention that all of a sudden people will become violent is not grounded in any logical fear (think of your everyday interactions with people, are they violent? the govts everyday interactions all involve at least the threat of violence), because it will always be to their own self-interest not to go to war in a privatised system. Fear of retaliation, emotional discomfort, reputation loss and increased costs all make it not worth their while.

Everyday interactions are not violent because most people are civil and have no quarrel with one another. However, when disputes arise, they tend to not end in a bloodbath because we have institutionalised dispute resolution under the state, and because we know that the state will step in on our behalf should we be threatened. Anarcho-capitalism is simply impossible, because people will, in the absence of the state, simply re-form the same old structures.

 

[ajdlinux]

1. Under your proposed small state, how are the people supposed to keep the state from expanding?
2. Are you aware of any countrys govt in the past that has actually stayed small over the long run?

My argument is: Govts are too dangerous to be allowed to exist and there is no way to actually keep them small once you've given up all power to them.

Question for anarchists: Are you aware of any country in the past that has actually stayed without a government over the long run? (long run meaning 20+ years)

I don't think there has been.

Anarchy has no accountability and it's going to be a lot worse than things are under a (admittedly flawed) democracy. The economy would be crazy and infrastructure could be of varying quality, and forget about common carrier neutrality or anything like that.

 

[volition]

And the exact same thing will happen under your anarcho-capitalist system. A band of pirates/ninjas/whatever is roaming around and people will happily give up their liberty to gain some security. It would be the same old social contract, just with a plethora of 'private' states providing security.

As long as people voluntarily agree (they don't atm, cos its all implicit) to some kind of explicit terms or contract, there's absolutely no problem with this.

Powerless? Hardly. Our system builds in accountability, flawed though it may be. That's more than your system offers.

Yes, powerless. By definition, giving up the legal monopoly over the use of force, leaves us ordinary joes powerless.

Now accountability, what kind of business could you run, that when you fail, you get to steal more money(our govt throws more and more money at failing ventures) from people who don't want your service? Would you pay money to a hospital where two poor women had to miscarry in the toilets without help? (thats what happened recently up at royal north shore)

Obviously, in a truly capitalist society, the only businesses that run profitably, are those that are efficient and provide a service/good that people WANT. Corporate accountability is much better than govt accountability, because the govt doesn't need to 'be a good boy', it'll just take your money anyway. Private businesses have to earn your respect/money.

Everyday interactions are not violent because most people are civil and have no quarrel with one another. However, when disputes arise, they tend to not end in a bloodbath because we have institutionalised dispute resolution under the state, and because we know that the state will step in on our behalf should we be threatened. Anarcho-capitalism is simply impossible, because people will, in the absence of the state, simply re-form the same old structures.

So basically you're saying that the state is the only thing keeping us from being violent gangsters or something? You don't even feel that people are able to just 'be nice' and expect the same back in the same way we work our social customs? Nobody enforces 'being polite', but most ppl still are aren't they?

Private dispute resolution already exists and there's no reason to think it couldn't work in anarcho-capitalism. For example, before taking out a contract with someone, you could do it via one of these organisations who will agree to be the 3rd party decider for a fee. Or if you have a dispute, both people take it to a court and let it decide for them. There's a lot to be said for reputation in markets, think ebay feedback but only bigger and better. There's no "police" on ebay is there? And yet it still functions pretty well hey? I've bought a few things from overseas, and I haven't been cheated, and they have to be decent, or they won't get business!

As for reforming the old structures of govt: Not if they don't stand for coercion and violence against their person.

Question for anarchists: Are you aware of any country in the past that has actually stayed without a government over the long run? (long run meaning 20+ years)

Pleasant surprise for you: part 17 of some ancap faq. For a more in depth look at the way the Vikings did it 8 centures ago, see here.

btw, the reason the Viking system failed, was because the church started taxing people and basically fucked things up:

The tithe thus did more than just increase the income of the chieftains; it decoupled that income from accountability. Economic inequalities per se are not a serious threat to liberty so long as they operate in a genuine market context, where the way to gain and maintain wealth is to please one’s customers; before the introduction of the tithe, a chieftain who proved too power-hungry would alienate his customers and so suffer financial discipline. But chieftains who owned churchsteads now had a captive market, and so were freed from all competitive restraints on their accumulation of wealth and power. Through buying off or intimidating less wealthy chieftains, the top families were able to gain control of multiple chieftaincies. This gave them a lock on the parliament, enabling them to pass still further taxes; it also decreased competition among chieftains, allowing them to charge monopoly prices and drive their clients into a serf-like state of debt and dependence.

Saying we need a separation of church and state is like saying we need separation of snake and reptile. I think to have a better shot at moving toward anarcho-capitalism, this delusion of a god needs to go too.

Notice how the justifications for their actions are kinda similar. "It's not me you're listening to, its god telling you to do it" sounds very similar to "It's not for me, its for the common good!". In both cases, that person will claim to be the one who 'knows' the will of god, or the will of the people. They create concepts and then foster allegiance to that concept, especially in children (get em while they're young hey?). It doesn't even necessarily have to be intentional, this is just the way it tends to happen.

The economy would be crazy and infrastructure could be of varying quality, and forget about common carrier neutrality or anything like that.

So you don't think companies are able to work together? How do you think credit risk checking works? How about when you go to a Commonwealth ATM with your St George bank card? How about whenever you go shopping and use EFTPOS?

 

[circusmind]

As long as people voluntarily agree (they don't atm, cos its all implicit) to some kind of explicit terms or contract, there's absolutely no problem with this.

You realise this means that the exact same thing will re-emerge, right? So all you want is the social contract to be expressly renewed???

Yes, powerless. By definition, giving up the legal monopoly over the use of force, leaves us ordinary joes powerless.

We have power through democratic means by which we restrain the state's use of their monopoly on force. Your idea will leave us no more powerful. Do you honestly think that you have any more power against a panopoly of private forces than against one big one?

So basically you're saying that the state is the only thing keeping us from being violent gangsters or something? You don't even feel that people are able to just 'be nice' and expect the same back in the same way we work our social customs? Nobody enforces 'being polite', but most ppl still are aren't they?

Most people are dickheads. Work in retail or hospitality and observe....

In any case, civility is not what I'm talking about. A lot of negative behaviours are only avoided through the implicit threat of state coercion. People choose not to drink/drive or speed excessively because they know that if push comes to shove, they will be coerced into complying with society's rules.

Private dispute resolution already exists and there's no reason to think it couldn't work in anarcho-capitalism. For example, before taking out a contract with someone, you could do it via one of these organisations who will agree to be the 3rd party decider for a fee. Or if you have a dispute, both people take it to a court and let it decide for them.

ADR works as a means of avoiding the courts, not replacing them. ADR has its advantages, but the chief disadvantage is a lack of enforceability. Without a state to enforce decisions, you can have all the settlements you want, but no-one need comply with them!

 

[volition]

You realise this means that the exact same thing will re-emerge, right? So all you want is the social contract to be expressly renewed???

The trouble with things as they are now, is that the govt never really did own things, it just stole them. On top of this, rights don't come from the govt, they flow from the self-ownership of every individual.

We have power through democratic means by which we restrain the state's use of their monopoly on force. Your idea will leave us no more powerful. Do you honestly think that you have any more power against a panopoly of private forces than against one big one?

First of all this makes no logical sense, and is not backed up by empirical evidence in anyway (the whole point of this thread, that govts never stay small).

Democracy is nothing but a suggestion box for the slaves. You have a vote, on which you're supposed to balance every single possible stance you have on things. You can never even directly vote for which certain things you want or not.

Even then, why should things be forced on you when you don't want them? Doesn't this strike you as unfair? Did all the anti-iraq war protesting do ANYTHING? oh, guess not eh.

As for the comment about 'one big force' or lots of little ones: If you think the solution to problems now is to just create one massive gang (the govt), then why don't you also want to create another govt above that one (presumably to control all those littler govts)? And so on all the way up to infinity. World govt, galaxy govt, universe govt, etc etc. Its the problem of infinite regression.

A lot of negative behaviours are only avoided through the implicit threat of state coercion. People choose not to drink/drive or speed excessively because they know that if push comes to shove, they will be coerced into complying with society's rules.

What's your point? the rules just become privatised, the owner of the road now enforces them. This time, you actually have more choice (seeing as you don't have to pay for roads you don't use).

ADR has its advantages, but the chief disadvantage is a lack of enforceability. Without a state to enforce decisions, you can have all the settlements you want, but no-one need comply with them!

Whats this obsession with punishment? What gives you the right to do that to someone against their will? Unless its been contracted for/agreed to beforehand of course.

Punishments will be voluntarily accepted, or the person will face economic exclusion/loss of contract rating etc. In the same way that you can get a bad credit rating now, people will refuse to do business with you, which is why generally people would have to accept the punishment (or appeal to another court) and get on with their life.

Now if people keep rejecting court decisions from well established, unbiased courts (it will pay to be as unbiased as humanly possible), then other people in society will view that person badly. Your economic reputation takes a long time to build up, but can be destroyed very quickly.

 

[circusmind]

Even then, why should things be forced on you when you don't want them? Doesn't this strike you as unfair?

So move somewhere lawless. The overwhelming majority are happy to have the (absolutely miniscule) amount of state imposition we endure in Australia in return for the benefits of security and civil society.

What's your point? the rules just become privatised, the owner of the road now enforces them. This time, you actually have more choice (seeing as you don't have to pay for roads you don't use).

My point is that the rule of law under a state encourages civil behaviour and discourages misbehaviour.

Whats this obsession with punishment? What gives you the right to do that to someone against their will? Unless its been contracted for/agreed to beforehand of course.

Justice? Should we just let criminals go free, then? How despicable of us to do something to them against their will!

Punishments will be voluntarily accepted, or the person will face economic exclusion/loss of contract rating etc. In the same way that you can get a bad credit rating now, people will refuse to do business with you, which is why generally people would have to accept the punishment (or appeal to another court) and get on with their life.

Sure. So tell me how commerce is going to function when there is no established law on which to base dealings? A thousand courts means a thousand laws.

What about criminal proceedings? How do we stop murderers?

Now if people keep rejecting court decisions from well established, unbiased courts (it will pay to be as unbiased as humanly possible), then other people in society will view that person badly. Your economic reputation takes a long time to build up, but can be destroyed very quickly.

And yet people still rip others off constantly even when we have enforceable laws. You really expect to be able to restrain people by some sort of honour principle? Clearly the same reputation factor operates under the present system, and yet people still break the law.

 

[volition]

So move somewhere lawless. The overwhelming majority are happy to have the (absolutely miniscule) amount of state imposition we endure in Australia in return for the benefits of security and civil society.

lol! miniscule? the fed+state+local govts added up probably take >40% of your total income!

As for the "love it or leave it argument" - I think you need to reconsider. One of the problems with this argument is that it proves too much. It justifies dictatorships and murder and whatever else. "Hey, if you don't like my stabbing you in the leg, just leave! If you don't leave, I'm justifed in stabbing you in the leg!". Anyway, it makes sense that before govts popped up, people actually lived on land yeah? Well when the govt came into being and 'assumed control', this is basically saying that by "not moving your land to another country", you are tacitly accepting this govts control over you. Obviously you can see the problem with this.

Implicit contracts are obviously immoral because ordinary citizens can't use them! I couldn't just go up to the newspaper guy on the street and steal a paper off him and say "if you don't like it, then don't set up shop here!" and claim that it was all some kind of implicit contract he agreed to.

My point is that the rule of law under a state encourages civil behaviour and discourages misbehaviour.

Yea so what though? People could just follow each others rules regarding each others property. Same way you take your shoes off when you go to an asian family's house.

Justice? Should we just let criminals go free, then? How despicable of us to do something to them against their will!

The economic exclusion is all the 'penalty' you are entitled to impose. For a look at how voluntary prison could work, see here.

Sure. So tell me how commerce is going to function when there is no established law on which to base dealings? A thousand courts means a thousand laws.

Each individual person/business can get insurance beforehand based on what laws they want to follow or things they want protected.

eg. you go to a company and they insure you against harm to your person for $x of cash and then they go about preventing crime. (preventing the payout from ever occurring by preventing crime is generally cheaper than actually just paying you whenever you get hurt) They might even want some reciprocity in the thing, and say that if you harm other people then they'll take money from you to cover that or something.

eg. before your business enters an agreement with another business, you agree to both pay say 2% (or whatever, doesn't matter) of the contract to a private mediation/arbitration firm who will be the established arbitrator in the case of dispute. You can have a term in the contract that says you can appeal to another private court if you wish.

Alternatively, you could have actual different towns where you go and sign an explicit agreement about what laws you agree to uphold, and it functions like a local govt basically. Except you have to agree to every single law and regulation and tax etc. Before such a town could be formed, the town former would first have to own all that land, unlike current govts which just stole the land from people who were living there before they popped up.

Clearly the same reputation factor operates under the present system, and yet people still break the law.

It doesn't work to the same extent it would under anarcho-capitalism, obviously your reputation will matter more when you actually have to do more private dealing, rather than just relying on the state.

Not just this, but when you say "break the law" you're talking about law that has been imposed on people. Under anarcho-capitalism, laws are voluntarily agreed to! Huge difference.

 

[sam04u]

Direct democracy, please.

 

[circusmind]

lol! miniscule? the fed+state+local govts added up probably take >40% of your total income!

As for the "love it or leave it argument" - I think you need to reconsider. One of the problems with this argument is that it proves too much. It justifies dictatorships and murder and whatever else. "Hey, if you don't like my stabbing you in the leg, just leave! If you don't leave, I'm justifed in stabbing you in the leg!". Anyway, it makes sense that before govts popped up, people actually lived on land yeah? Well when the govt came into being and 'assumed control', this is basically saying that by "not moving your land to another country", you are tacitly accepting this govts control over you. Obviously you can see the problem with this.

That's not what I'm arguing at all. All I'm saying is that you, personally, as an anarcho-capitalist, should probably move to say....Somalia....as the general populace here consents to what you see as excessive government intrusion in their lives.

Implicit contracts are obviously immoral because ordinary citizens can't use them! I couldn't just go up to the newspaper guy on the street and steal a paper off him and say "if you don't like it, then don't set up shop here!" and claim that it was all some kind of implicit contract he agreed to.

Our government was formed by democratic mandate.

The economic exclusion is all the 'penalty' you are entitled to impose. For a look at how voluntary prison could work, see here.

Wow. All the fun of state coercion and none of the due process. Fantastic!

Each individual person/business can get insurance beforehand based on what laws they want to follow or things they want protected.

eg. you go to a company and they insure you against harm to your person for $x of cash and then they go about preventing crime. (preventing the payout from ever occurring by preventing crime is generally cheaper than actually just paying you whenever you get hurt) They might even want some reciprocity in the thing, and say that if you harm other people then they'll take money from you to cover that or something.

eg. before your business enters an agreement with another business, you agree to both pay say 2% (or whatever, doesn't matter) of the contract to a private mediation/arbitration firm who will be the established arbitrator in the case of dispute. You can have a term in the contract that says you can appeal to another private court if you wish.

The best part about anarchist theories is the way the author always presumes that an excessively elaborate operation like this will spontaneously appear. Never mind the fact that it would be more efficient for a party to just enforce their will through mercernaries.

Alternatively, you could have actual different towns where you go and sign an explicit agreement about what laws you agree to uphold, and it functions like a local govt basically. Except you have to agree to every single law and regulation and tax etc. Before such a town could be formed, the town former would first have to own all that land, unlike current govts which just stole the land from people who were living there before they popped up.

What about people born there? This is just the same arrangement we have now, only the social contract is affirmed once-off. A lot of effort for no gain.

It doesn't work to the same extent it would under anarcho-capitalism, obviously your reputation will matter more when you actually have to do more private dealing, rather than just relying on the state.

Uhhh....what? I don't understand. How will the lack of a state make a private corporation's reputation more important?

Not just this, but when you say "break the law" you're talking about law that has been imposed on people. Under anarcho-capitalism, laws are voluntarily agreed to! Huge difference.

What you're proposing is the imposition of an absolute ideology on the world for no real practical benefit.....

 

[volition]

That's not what I'm arguing at all. All I'm saying is that you, personally, as an anarcho-capitalist, should probably move to say....Somalia....as the general populace here consents to what you see as excessive government intrusion in their lives.

Go back and read what I answered before about 'love it or leave it', you didn't read/understand it. It applies to everyone, not just one person.

As for Somalia, the case of somalia doesn't do much help to anyone. Apples and Oranges: I'm arguing that an anarcho-capitalist society > govt. If it is the case that people in a given area are more violent, then YES anarcho-capitalism won't help so much, but I'm saying it would still be preferable to a govt. I think it may be the case that people are more violent in Somalia, so I'm not moving there. As far as economic freedom goes, Australia is ranked pretty highly (about 3rd on the heritage list iirc?) but that doesn't mean I can't at least work towards something better

Our government was formed by democratic mandate.

Once again, I've already told you why this isn't fair/logical. It suggests that people could have "moved their land to another country" if they didn't like it. Even then, democracy is still wrong and illogical because it imposes the will of the majority on other people.

The best part about anarchist theories is the way the author always presumes that an excessively elaborate operation like this will spontaneously appear. Never mind the fact that it would be more efficient for a party to just enforce their will through mercernaries.

It'd come up pretty fast if there were no govt holding us back, plenty of money to be made with the 'first mover advantage'. I've already showed you why it wouldn't be 'efficient' to enforce your will via mercenaries.

Uhhh....what? I don't understand. How will the lack of a state make a private corporation's reputation more important?

Reputation in general will matter a lot more, because right now even if you have a bad reputation you'll still get a great deal of services from the state. Naturally, when your reputation is being used more, it matters more yeah?

What you're proposing is the imposition of an absolute ideology on the world for no real practical benefit.....

Ok now your opposition to this seems to be more emotional than logical. If you were thinking clearly, you'd realise that we could end world wars (there'd be no reason to fight and people would have to pay for wars themselves instead of offloading the cost on other people and so they'd be much less inclined to try it). At the very minimum, we'd reduce wars.

We wouldn't be constantly living under this threat of violence and be made to pay things that we don't support (like the war in Iraq for example). Atm, we don't even have the right to disagree, if we had the right to disagree we'd be able to withhold our taxation from the govt on those issues.

Finally, I don't even consider it an 'imposition' of an ideology, since you aren't MADE to do anything. I consider it the removal of an 'imposition' of an illogical ideology (representative democracy). When you think about it, you're the one imposing your ideology on me, for no real practical benefit.

 

[ajdlinux]

Pleasant surprise for you: part 17 of some ancap faq. For a more in depth look at the way the Vikings did it 8 centures ago, see here.

Interesting, didn't know that.

However, I wonder if any of those societies would be anarcho-capitalist if modern technology were available today. I think a big reason for the emergence of several of these anarcho-capitalist systems was simply that noone else knew what they were doing, they didn't know what anyone else was doing, and they had to rule themselves out of necessity. (This excludes Ireland and some of those American cases.)

In most cases where anarchy has occurred historically, a government has been established fairly quickly (in the scale of history, 50 years isn't that long).

(I'm thinking about the failure of anarcho-capitalism in practice, i.e. why it won't happen, rather than why it's theoretically bad.)

So you don't think companies are able to work together? How do you think credit risk checking works? How about when you go to a Commonwealth ATM with your St George bank card? How about whenever you go shopping and use EFTPOS?

Companies ARE able to work together, but they don't have to. Think e.g. the current net neutrality debate.

Also, what would you do if your bank simply decided to take all your money? You wouldn't be able to pay anyone, you might not be able to blame anyone in particular, the private courts could be corrupted or not attended.

(I'm not an expert at anarchic philosophy and expect this to be demolished really quickly )

 

[volition]

However, I wonder if any of those societies would be anarcho-capitalist if modern technology were available today. I think a big reason for the emergence of several of these anarcho-capitalist systems was simply that noone else knew what they were doing, they didn't know what anyone else was doing, and they had to rule themselves out of necessity. (This excludes Ireland and some of those American cases.)

I really think the existence of technology is irrelevant to whether anarcho-capitalism works or not.

In most cases where anarchy has occurred historically, a government has been established fairly quickly (in the scale of history, 50 years isn't that long).

Look at that Iceland Viking one, that one lasted for hundreds of years and only collapsed because of the church's interference. If people learned to reject all govt authority, then in anarcho-capitalism people would be worried about these private firms becoming govts and so they would take measures against this.

They might require terms in their contract like "If you find ANY evidence that we the enforcement agency start amassing an army with black helicopters and the like, we will pay you $10 million". Not to mention because there's competition amongst these enforcement agencies, and if one of them did become a govt then the first thing this govt would do is establish a monopoly on stuff like enforcement, which is bad for the competitor's business. So in anarcho-capitalism, these enforcement agencies will be watching each other to make sure it doesn't happen. They would have reciprocity agreements with each other (in the same way that mobile phone companies work together to deliver long distance phone calls or whatever), and they might even get independent audits done on their warehouses or whatever to prove that they aren't amassing armies.

Companies ARE able to work together, but they don't have to. Think e.g. the current net neutrality debate.

Hang on, so how do you expect a govt to be able to help here anyway? Now you aren't even comparing anarcho-capitalism with govts, you're comparing anarcho-capitalism with some kind of utopia

Remember, we don't have the option of utopia, we have either govts or markets.

Also, what would you do if your bank simply decided to take all your money? You wouldn't be able to pay anyone, you might not be able to blame anyone in particular, the private courts could be corrupted or not attended.

This would be absolutely TERRIBLE for their reputation, so they'd never do that! Every customer would just go and pull all their money out straight away. Nobody would ever use their services again, and they know this. This threat keeps them from doing it. If they actually did do it, you'd take them to court and sue them to get your money back.

As for private courts being corrupted, once again, they only survive if they get repeat business! Nobody is going to use private courts that are corrupted, people want courts that are as unbiased as humanly possible.

Oh and I don't consider myself an expert on anarchist theory

 

[ajdlinux]

I really think the existence of technology is irrelevant to whether anarcho-capitalism works or not.

Look at that Iceland Viking one, that one lasted for hundreds of years and only collapsed because of the church's interference. If people learned to reject all govt authority, then in anarcho-capitalism people would be worried about these private firms becoming govts and so they would take measures against this.

They might require terms in their contract like "If you find ANY evidence that we the enforcement agency start amassing an army with black helicopters and the like, we will pay you $10 million". Not to mention because there's competition amongst these enforcement agencies, and if one of them did become a govt then the first thing this govt would do is establish a monopoly on stuff like enforcement, which is bad for the competitor's business. So in anarcho-capitalism, these enforcement agencies will be watching each other to make sure it doesn't happen. They would have reciprocity agreements with each other (in the same way that mobile phone companies work together to deliver long distance phone calls or whatever), and they might even get independent audits done on their warehouses or whatever to prove that they aren't amassing armies.

Well, a private firm would only become a government once it has enough capital and resources. They could use some interesting structures, undercover agreements and so on to arrange that, so their true strength is hidden.

Of course I don't know whether this happens in practice.

Hang on, so how do you expect a govt to be able to help here anyway? Now you aren't even comparing anarcho-capitalism with govts, you're comparing anarcho-capitalism with some kind of utopia

Remember, we don't have the option of utopia, we have either govts or markets.

Three letters. L. A. W.

When a government with adequate control over the nation says something, it happens. (This isn't meant to be taken too literally.)

This would be absolutely TERRIBLE for their reputation, so they'd never do that! Every customer would just go and pull all their money out straight away. Nobody would ever use their services again, and they know this. This threat keeps them from doing it. If they actually did do it, you'd take them to court and sue them to get your money back.

Well, why doesn't the bank just hire someone to go kill you? They'd have all the money in the world essentially, and be able to cover stuff up.

As for private courts being corrupted, once again, they only survive if they get repeat business! Nobody is going to use private courts that are corrupted, people want courts that are as unbiased as humanly possible.

True.

Oh and I don't consider myself an expert on anarchist theory

OK

Another question I have is what about the less profitable infrastructure? Would the road outside my house become a toll road, or would I have to pay a road-keeping company virtual taxes to use it? A company with a monopoly on something so vital, without regulation, could become just as bad as the government, with so much control, by merely putting clauses in contracts. Power corrupts, and a good government structure is designed to ensure noone has too much power. A government monopoly is designed to give fair access to everyone. Would private companies do the same? I don't think so.