@ Murphy http://mises.org/daily/1855
Murphy thesis is lacking and unconvincing in the least.
Paradoxically, Murphy continually cites anecdotal empirical evidence to support his theories supporting anarchism viability while conveniently missing the overwhelming empirical elephant in the room that anarchist society has never existed in any sturdy form at any time in history.
Also, Murphy misrepresents liberal democracy which is specifically designed to limit, balance, decentralize and make transparent the elements of armed force in society with this misrepresentation
“citizens put aside their petty differences and agree to support a single, monopoly agency, which then has the power to crush all challengers to its authority. “ – Murphy
This is manifestly absurd.
Citizens in liberal democracy created government to intentionally limit, balance, deter, decentralize, and make transparent the elements of authority. Indeed, the capitalist system has best flourished under liberal democracy than any other system. Of course, statists have found a way to gain power by economic means, hence we need an Economic Bill of Rights to complement our already sturdy political and civil Bill of Rights. But to gut the most effective tool to forestall absolutism and replace it with a demonstrably failed system is for the faith-based fringe.
Also, unlike most products and services, armed force is territorial. It is most effective when it is used in proximity to both client and competitor. Hence, normal market mechanisms don’t apply in the same degree. And this proximity lends itself to territorial monopolies of armed force.
Moreover, Murphy is clueless to the fact that military agencies in anarcho-capitalist societies would not be motivated by peaceful outcomes as he repeatedly asserts – like all other successful anarchist enterprises, the bottom line would be economic profit, not some aesthetic goal advocated by faith-based moralists.
“Nonetheless, if the contract theory of government is correct, the vast majority of individuals can agree that they should settle these issues not through force, but rather through an orderly procedure (such as is provided by periodic elections).” – Murphy
In murphy’s fantasyland, this may be true – but the fact is that armed force is an oft used and highly effective means to settle issues favorable to those who decide to employ force. Hence, if a military firm believes that they can realize a net gain on investment they will use armed force to realize that gain when peaceful exchange is not possible or more costly that the use of armed force.
why would we expect such virtuous people, as consumers, to patronize defense agencies that routinely used force against weak opponents? – Murphy
consumers and investors of military agencies that secure inadequately defended resources that result in a net gain on investment will be rewarded. Of course, handwringing moralists like Murphy can invest their capital in the ‘nice firms’ – however, he will soon see his investment squandered and lost relative to more economic profit seeking actors in society. Indeed, the profit motivated firms will see their capital and power increase relative to firms that subordinate profits to some subjective moral value judgment that can’t be identified on any balance sheet or income statement.
Moreover, those military firms that base their actions on economic profit will far exceed and outperform Murphy’s favored firms that base their actions on peace, justice, fair play or other highly subjective value judgments. Indeed, the military industry is no place for self-aggrandizing humanitarians hell bent on martrydom.
IT is contradictory that supposed maximal-capitalists like Murphy regard economic profit as the means for a healthy and productive society in all economic endeavors except the military industry which is supposed to subordinate economic profit for peaceful coexistence. Moreover, this illogic makes one question why in this fantasy society security would even be necessary.
Murphy’s faith-based illogic is easily exposed by asking him the question of how much security should a given firm invest in ? Logically if this level decreases naturally the likelihood that this resource will be attacked increases – otherwise it would be impossible to calculate the appropriate level of security within anarchist society or even if it was necessary.
Expanding on this simple premise, the level of security is heavily dependent on the economic profitability of the firm. If a firm is unprofitable relative to a competitor, it is more likely that the unprofitable firm will be subject to predation. because it will not be able to fund an appropriate level of security equivalent to the value of its holdings/capital/resources et al.
Hence, economic considerations are the primary driver for determining the amount of violence in an anarchist society. INdeed, if anarchist society has security – AND no anarchist disputes that it doesnt – then the relative level of security is critical to protection from predation, violence, and hence the profitability of the firm is directly correlated to whether that firm is annexed by force or not.
And Murphy exposes himself as a quasi-statist by offering this:
Why wouldn’t the vast bulk of reasonable customers patronize defense agencies that had interlocking arbitration agreements, and submitted their legitimate disputes to reputable, disinterested arbitrators? – Murphy
Does Murphy realize that these ‘interlocking arbitration agreements’ are the fast track to territorial monopolies of armed force and in turn absolutism?
Also, does Murphy understand that his society based on non-coercive means would protect the inefficient,wasteful and corrupt status quo at the expense of societal dynamism that armed insurrections oft times promote (see American Revolution, collapse of global communism, et al).
To illustrate, if an environmentalist consortuim acquired the Bakken reserve by peaceful means and deny this energy bounty to society, it is likely that a profit seeking military firm would take this valuable resource by force if it was not available for peaceful exchange. Indeed, virtually all of society would welcome this release of heretofore mismanaged resources that resulted in lower energy prices, increased jobs, and increased manufacturing output and productivity.
Or course a few handwringing isolationists would protest – but when has economic considerations surrendered to this pacifist rabble ?
Indeed, a truly dynamic and productive society does allow for change by coercive means if necessary – and many times this is the only immediate and effective means to force beneficial change. Who would doubt that removing the current dictatorships in Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, et al by force would be detrimental to society ? Of course, faith-based pacifists and anarchists would – but history has confirmed that they are inconsequential.
The same reasoning demonstrates that the free market could adequately fund programs to “contain” rogue agencies. – Murphy
Here murphy makes the unsupported assumption that firms that were violent must necessarily be ‘rogue’ and unprofitable?!! However, what if a firm was violent and profitable ? Would this be considered a rogue industry if it generate generous returns to investors and clients ?
Why is it that everything violent is unproductive in Murphy’s fantasyland ? Indeed, if coercion was so destructive and damaging to those who initiated it – why have the most influential societies been the most effective and virulent at using violence to obtain desired ends ?
Indeed, if violence is a bane to those who wield it – why is Murphy himself slave to statists who wield coercive means against his interests? Or does he pay taxes voluntarily and kowtow to statists using coercive means by choice ?!!
And when has society ever been driven by what is productive and peaceful to the vast majority of citizens ? INdeed, society is driven by what is productive and profitable to the few – not the many. That is why the most effective system (capitalism) and the least costly means (peaceful voluntary exchange) have been the least practiced.
Society is ruled by those that most aggressively pursue their own self-interest, not those whose self-interest most benefit society. – Centinel
Remember, these would be admittedly criminal organizations; unlike the city government of New York, there would be no ideological support for these gangs. – Murphy
Again if Murphy’s illogical holds true beyond his faith-based mind – why do coercive entities like statist governments hold sway over most of the globe ? Indeed, by his own definition our current government is a criminal enterprise, yet Murphy kowtows to its every unfair and coercive law.
Of course, it is theoretically possible that a rogue agency could overcome these obstacles, either through intimidation or division of the spoils, and take over enough banks, power companies, grocery stores, etc. that only full-scale military assault would conquer it. – Murphy
Murphy admits it. His bizarre rationalization for supporting a short-lived anarchist society is that the absolutist would have to start from scratch !!! INdeed, this is what always happens under short-lived anarchist experiments – absolutism emerges in every instance.
In contrast, under even a limited government, the machinery of mass subjugation is ready and waiting to be seized. – Murphy
Is murphy clueless ? Liberal democracy is precisely built on the premise of putting the ‘machinery of mass subjugation’ in a decentralized, limited, balanced and transparent prison from which the free citizenry can monitor and attenuate as needed. Indeed, as I stated, civil and political liberties have expanded under liberal democracy for the last 230 years. Moreover, this system is gradually expanding in size and scope(albeit in fits and starts) across the globe as citizens see its effectiveness at generating peace, prosperity, stability and freedom.
Indeed, I am a capitalist first and foremost, and I realize that COnstitutional Federal REpublicanism is the vaccine which prevents the lethality of the germ statism. Our founding fathers, Mises, Hayek, et al recognized that a injection of non-lethal government into society forces statist elements to coalesce in a central location both figuratively and literally in a greatly attenuated form that free citizens can better monitor and check. Of course, we need another injection of vaccine to replace the one administered in 1776 and 1787 because the germ has mutated to become an economic parasite. Hence, an Economic Bill of Rights is at hand.
But lets not kill the patient by removing all protections against the germ of statism that anarchism represents.