I really don’t understand this critique - in order to avoid some gang setting up tyranny, we set up a state that can easily be hijacked by unscrupulous individuals…?
Yes, didn’t you know? We need to set up a monopoly to stop a monopoly from forming. And we need a state because there are evil people in the world and to stop evil people from doing evil things, and surely these evil people will not control the state.
What impeccable logic.
end sarcasm here
Seriously though, I’ve found all of the basic arguements in favor of having a state to be self-contradictary.
You don’t mean render forth, you mean “why isn’t it beneficial to have part of one’s property stolen for the protection of the rest?” That question answers itself. A basic problem with your question is the implicit assumption that the state, once set up, will actually protect the rest of your property, rather than using the money you’ve “rendered” to construct more ways to separate you from your property. Another problem is this - what portion is the right portion to spend on protection? I don’t want an answer, I know you can’t give one, since value is subjective and the portion differs for different people. So how will a monopoly provider of protection take the right amount from each person, with no price structure in place? Certainly 50%, the amount we pay now, is not an amount I would ever choose to pay, I am buying far more than I could ever want to - of course, I’m not getting that much protection, because of a more fundamental problem. The state, as a monopoly provider, has no interest in attracting customers, and there’s no relation between the service provided and the price paid. So, at any price, they provide less than a private provider would, since they have no reason to incur costs, given that I can’t do anything about it anyway.
To me these are honest questions. I see nothing that prevents anarchism from being a temporary state (as in “state of being”) that would be unsustainable. I’ll be the first to admit I’m no genius. Let me say that again, I’ll be the first to admit I’m no genius. Yes, there are evil people, and, even basically good people can yeild to temptation, thus becoming an “evil person.” The argument presented against minarchism is that it is theft to take anything, and the temptation to take more is too strong to resist. Good enough, yet does not that temptation yet exist in the abscence of a state? Would there not still motive for individuals to come together to attempt to assert a “ruling class” hegemony. What prevents anarchy from being an endless violent struggle? I would voluntarily “render forth” protection money, to pay for a service of protection, and could likely have to pay it to a gang anyways in an anarchic state (of being). Isn’t this opportunity cost? What in the animal nature of humans would prevent “herding” or being herded? Would my gun be enough, what if my gun is outnumbered by many guns? Would not the entire anarchy depend on a common shared “live free of die” mentallity, and how can such a philosophy be secured minus the use of force? Is it preferable to die and loose my property rather than live and loose some, most, or all property?
I’d like to add that I would appreciate correction. I see how the “make a monopoly to prevent a monopoly” argument isn’t the smartest, however I was intending less of a critique and more of a questioning. I guess what I was, and am, saying is, “If I’m going to consent to the absence of a state I’d like to know more about how that would work or be sustainable.”
I think many of us could attempt to answer this, but why reinvent the wheel? I find it easier and more productive to simply recommend some resources:
For a New Liberty, Rothbard
Power and Market, Rothbard
Chaos Theory, Murphy (shortest)
Market for Freedom, Tannehill
These books offer various visions of the provision of security in a free world. Most of us, like you, would render forth protection money, what we object to is “rendering forth” - the quotes indicating that this is not exactly what is going on. Further, when we do pay for protection, we want, you know, the service we pay for. What we don’t want to do is pay this money and have it be spent on programs to kill millions abroad, or to spy on us. What prevents a monopoly provider from doing these things, since we give them the power to tax, to compel us, and to use force?
Thanks, I’m going to go for the shortest one when I get a chance, to start out with at least. I don’t want to pay for killing millions abroad either. I just wonder how these private security companies will not end up fighting each other for power. I guess I’m a pessimist about any and every system or lack thereof, and was hoping for some sort of stability in a monopoly over these provisions…
Why would private security companies fight each other in such a costly manner as to fight violently? Imagine two grocery stores competing for the same customers. Would you expect one of them to blow up the warehouse of the other? Why is that scenario ludicrous, but a security-company war is not? Like most industries, the companies are going to have to attract customers based on their image, how much people think they can be trusted, and the value that they’re perceived to provide. Engaging in violence and sabotage would not help them attract customers. At best they could engage in a short-lived protection racket, but it could not be sustained. Security as a service does not have completely different economic rules compared to other services.
People seem to think going to war is as easy as snapping one’s fingers. It’s hard enough with an obedient population and tax-expropriated funds, how on earth would it be any more prevalent when firms rely on voluntarily-obtained funds and are forced to shoulder all their costs themselves?
I was amazed by this statement. “There is no proof for the existence of land rent” - you clearly are not a land owner (like me) OR if you are certainly don’t know what to demand for the price of rent.
Land rent is value put on land by the community before its even touched by the hand of man or woman, followed by any incremental value increases owed to the community - prices are determined by the value of the other individual(s) - the capitalist who wants to site more will buy it and put it to use. It’s the amount you would pay for virgin farmland, or an empty city site. It is this value, the unimproved value, which is the common wealth and which belongs to (in most part) all of the community. This is why our tax system is flawed, its inequitable - it takes our money then gives landowners windfalls through infrastructure (see more: Fred Harrison book, Riccardo’s Law). Your improvements on the other hand belong to you. Every single drop of sweat, or by the brain power you apply to the increase in value of the asset, be it a new building, a hotel, or a thousand hectares of wheat should be yours. You make it, you keep it. But return the community created rent to the community - anyways, it’s amazing really because I just finished of a paper which showed certain interesting things:
- Areas of high unemployment have 7 times as much idle land (in square metres) than areas of low unemployment - labor is abundant (hell in the samples I used unemployment was around 15%!), but land is idle (the rents are too expensive and some are just vacant) - areas at the margin are blight - a single tax would breath life into decay and rundown areas, increasing supply of labour and land and the demand of good with all taxes abolished. First supramarginal land which is held idle is put into use (in a random sample some areas in the city had 3 vacant stores - not for sale), then submarginal - the point here is that places in the city (which are idle) would be put into use, followed further onto the margin. So, even if land rent doesn’t exist (which I think is not true - its simply the value of the land - land tax makes land in the city (particularly, blighted areas) more aesthetic: so the tax is a little bit off, who cares? Everything is active - real commerce. Pittburgh had something like 4000 idle buildings, this dropped to 400 after a land tax was introduced. There unemployment level dropped (keeping in mind also it was one of the only places in America not to experience a land bubble and it would drop even more as all other taxes are abolished).
I also develop a mathematical model which shows land and resources would no longer be kidnapped and held out of productive use by private monopolies. Access would be within the reach of anyone who was willing to reimburse the community for the (partly) community-created value of the site plunk a school or road next to a piece of land is, generally, doubles. Anyways, Wage levels, uninhibited by fear of unemployment, would flourish as demand for labour surged. People given a free hand to produce and to prosper, and knowing that they would get as much income as they wanted to work for – or as little as they needed to comfortably survive – would begin to do the sorts of work that pleased them. The quality and range of goods and services would increase dramatically, thereby improving their attractiveness to our trading partners (internationally).
Stranger, stop judging things by there intention and look at there outcomes. You are like Marx - you tell us about all these possible intentions, but when it comes to reality you are fundamentally out of touch with the world.
- Most malinestments and overinvestments go into land - consider the panics of 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1929, 1973 (I show that land speculation contributed to the stagflation of the early 1970s), 1982, 1990 and recently (2008) - and where do most savings go into? Yep, land. Oh, that’s right land speculation/investment CAUSES recessions - how silly of me to think that stopping recessions was a bad thing! Gosh, stranger! I thought recessions were a needless thing to occur, a real type of “tyranny” - consider these articles: http://www.foldvary.net/works/geoaus.html and http://www.foldvary.net/works/rebc.html
Furthermore, abolishing a central bank won’t stop recessions or economic downturns or “malinvestment”. Australia in the 1890s had no central bank, had a 100% gold standard and this gave it the biggest depression (in 1890) - 35% unemployment and 30% deflation. Why? look up the “Great Melbourne Land Boom”.
Stranger, question for you: why do you hate freedom and why do you support economic downturns? It’s either you are deeply ignorant of Georgist theory and reality, or you are writing all these things just to stir us 