Continuing a discussion on facebook.

Miscellaneous General
1

I was arguing in support of democracy with Liam Anthony, who holds the dissenting view. He directed me here as a more suitable place to conduct the discussion, though I hope the subfora is appropriate. I suppose it is more “off-topic” than anything.

Anyway, the first strand of discussion I’ll pick up regards Tony Benn. I conveyed an argument originating with Christopher Hitchens that in a representative democracy that it was more important to vote based on personality than on platform, as it is a rarity that a politician will stick to their platform but they’re more likely to stick to their personality. Using that reasoning I said it’d be unlikely for Tony Benn to vote to restrict civil liberties, but Liam retorted that Tony Benn was a supporter of Saddam Hussein, or to quote Liam: “[Tony Benn told] the Iraqis how fortunate they were to have a dictator who ripped out the tongues of any dissidents”. While I do know that Tony Benn happened to oppose the war in Iraq and interviewed Saddam Hussein, I’ve never seen reports that he welcomed Saddam’s rule in Iraq. I reasoned that he would be a supporter of civil liberties based on quotes of his and I figured that any politician who moved to abolish the House of Lords would have a positive disposition. If you could provide a source for Tony Benn’s support of a the dictator, I’d cede that point.

Secondly Liam claimed that one of his post’s regarding monarchy’s superiority to democracy was purely an economic one. After having perused it, I’m afraid that the title and the arguments were a little too generic for that argument to hold true. Here’s the link, for those interested: http://british-neolibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/11/monarchy-is-better-than-democracy.html. One of the arguments proposed is that a monarch with no fixed terms or checks on their power would be more interested in maintaining their land, a metaphor for the economic health of their country. However I provided historical examples where that wasn’t the case, such as George the 2nd leading the UK into debt with war. I followed with the modern example of Saddam Hussein, where while he didn’t claim the title of “king”, he certainly did plan succession based on inheritence. Another somewhat flimsy distinction between monarchies and dictatorships was given in that monarchies are based on love of the head of state, but compulsory love is as repulsive as indoctrined fear, as evidenced in the regimes of Stalin and Kim Jong-il. The same self-interest can also be demonstrated in the case of Turmenbashi, who built himself giant golden statues while his country currently enjoys a PPP below that of Angola, for example. If all politicians are self-interested, at worst, a politician with a fixed term and the mechanisms of removal before their term expires will have the motivation to be demagogic and covert, if not to actually serve the people.

Another issue I’d like to raise is that as markets do not exist without societies, a healthy economy should not take precedence over high quality of life indicators. While they can coexist in democratic societies - and Amarta Sen has argued that democracy is a preventer of famines, if an economic boom came at the cost of a loss of the civilian’s capacity to pass judgement on those governing our lives, there would be a Utilitarian argument for rejecting it. That’s why I can’t take an economic argument in a vacuum, especially when coupled by the precedent set by other unelected heads of state.

As for my repeated references to Christopher Hitchens, I’ve been reading his memoirs recently and where he puts an argument more forcibly than I ever could, I like to credit him for that. One of his arguments germane to the topic previously discussed is that populations can be elevated above poverty by given women means of control over their own reproductive systems.

Finally, I wasn’t familiar with the Austro-Libertarian school, I was referring to the “American school” as discussed in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0. I suppose I was mistaken for thinking that the private means of production line of thought originated in America, given the websites title and Hayek and whatnot. But thanks for clarifying anyway.

Sorry if you intended for the discussion to shift to private messages, but cheers anyway.

Edit: Typo.

2

All that matters really are the economics. After that it is one of centralization vs decentralization. All the monarchy argument is good for is to show that by many claims there is nothing particualrly notable about democracy, and to show how most people’s preconceptions of it are just ingrained mythologies and polite conversation cultural tropes, as it is our cultural zeitgeist.

But their is nothing particualrly inherently good about any societal framework. All that matters is good and affluent custom and what can or can not rationally be said and calculated when dealing with intersubjective studies - in other words a market society. The conclusions for many here would be more of a propertarian anarchy. Though there are some who say micro-monarchy or micro-republic/democracy.

3

Also and very important:

Anyone who says they are in favor of returning to a monarchy in the West is living a fools dream. It simply won’t happen, no one will let one man rule over them as a king - it is too far out of custom and tilting at windmills. So just ignore them and they go away. There is no imperative to think about present or progressive sociology in monarchical terms. We have to take a look at sociological issues from a democratic framework and state of mind - as that is the actual world.

4

I can’t help but disagree… For example, to the Kurdish inhabitants of Iraq, economic questions were largely immaterial. Having the head of the government serve a fixed term and a constitution that prohibits racism and terrorism (including, presumably, genocide) were fundamentally important to them.

As far as the viability of anarchism or the superiority of societal frameworks, Liam brought up the concept of the “invisible hand”, which I countered with the example of the Baltimore police strike: where the enforcers of the law were absent for a relatively brief period of time and widespread looting and vandalism occurred. If society has to have law enforcers in order for stability, then it also requires courts and legislature, which provides the fundamental argument for the necessity of government.

Edit: I’m disagreeing with your first post at any rate, I agree with your second.

5

For example, to the Kurdish inhabitants of Iraq, economic questions were largely immaterial. Having the head of the government serve a fixed term and a constitution that prohibits racism and terrorism (including, presumably, genocide) were fundamentally important to them.

There is simply no magic bullet to speak for these things though. I am not a Kurd, I do not know what is best for the Kurds - these are just unique situations of human action. There is no universal application of co-ordination here, nothing to look at, and nothing that can be said.

It would just be the metaphysical musings of subsidized intellectuals to care and catergorize from far away - and that, that encouraged and subsidized intellectualism - would be the problem that we can talk about. That is our sphere, as it tries to put forth a univerally applicable language to human action that it can not do.

NOTE: This would be a question of decentralization, and giving individuals more chance to assert property and their own legal customs when we speak of the Kurds though, if one wished to speculate from the libertarian position.

EDIT - last line

6

As far as the viability of anarchism or the superiority of societal frameworks, Liam brought up the concept of the “invisible hand”, which I countered with the example of the Baltimore police strike: where the enforcers of the law were absent for a relatively brief period of time and widespread looting and vandalism occurred. If society has to have law enforcers in order for stability, then it also requires courts and legislature, which provides the fundamental argument for the necessity of government.

Well if you want to look at matters at hand -One always must remember that people are making their day to day calculations and predictions within the context of extant society. There is no reason why one can not have a more Burkean / Fabian outlook on things. ex: If people are within custom of having state police it probably wouldn’t be wise, scientifically or philosophically speaking, to think of what society would look like if the police got taken out in a mass violent coup.

7

“As far as the viability of anarchism or the superiority of societal frameworks, Liam brought up the concept of the “invisible hand”, which I countered with the example of the Baltimore police strike: where the enforcers of the law were absent for a relatively brief period of time and widespread looting and vandalism occurred. If society has to have law enforcers in order for stability, then it also requires courts and legislature, which provides the fundamental argument for the necessity of government.”

Markets can only work if participants have an idea about how to offer the service or good. If all airports ever built had been produced by the government then I daresay that people today would be arguing that a private airline system was impossible, how would it work? How could flights of many people, many of which you don’t even know if people will buy tickets for, be coordinated on a mass scale? How would the planes get back? What would stop the airplanes from being unsafe?

But as we know airlines work just fine when they’re private. Now let’s take another example, let’s say that we have a man who grew up in feudal Europe and has been raised to believe that he is less than his feudal master and to only focus on his brief little existence of farming and possibly family. Now do you really think that this man would instantly be fit for a democracy? But as we know people who are raised in a democratic society deal with it just fine, they participate and support what they believe is right, now why couldn’t the same be true with an anarchist society?

The strike example does not work because of the fact that everyone had it in their heads that the government had to run police agencies, and also even if they didn’t there might have been similar results just because of how sudden it was and that it was a total overhaul. If a huge company or firm (which is kind of the role that the government assumes in that it provides a service) just ups and stops producing the fact that overnight this might not be provided for does not show that capitalism is inherently a defective system.

Anarchism has worked in the past, it has emerged in a number of different ways in different places, the most recent of which being Somalia where it worked reasonably well.

http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

Also, upon close examination democracy, in any form but for an exceptionally strict constitutional one, seems to me to have no redeeming qualities. It’s flaws, I believe are as follows.

  1. A short run incentives problem

Those politicians who are oriented on the present are those who will always look more attractive to be elected in the now, long run consequences are complex and difficult to handle, also voters who do not show depth of intellect when voting will be attracted to politician who prefer short term benefits, they will look better, these are the politicians who are “doing good things”.

  1. A voting incentives problem

An individual vote is worth practically nothing, so what is the point of being an educated voter? What is the incentive which one gains? Matters are complex and so exactly what benefits the studying time which is needed to achieve a fully intelligent and democratic solution. Talk to some of your friends who vote and try to weasel out of them how much time they actually spent forming their opinions about topics in general, and then about how much time they spent examining a politician’s record.

  1. A voting knowledge problem

I do not know what is best for you, you do not know what is best for me. I do not know what the best way to go about achieving my goals is, and neither do you, the fact that there are two political parties who in many cases advocate different policies to solve the same problem exemplify this.

  1. A bureaucratic accountability problem

Once formed bureaucracies are incredibly difficult to handle. There are hundreds of them, they perform thousands of different services and cases, they put into action tens of thousands of different laws, rules, and regulations. How is it that you will vote to best fix these or guide them in the best way? For instance, the recent oil spill occurred from an oil rig that was given exemptions from environmental regulations and I don’t hear anyone complaining about the fact that the agency didn’t do its job.

  1. A policy knowledge problem

Governments can usually not tell exactly how successful they are, what constitutes success or failure. For instance, how much is a low unemployment rate worth? Let’s follow ye olde Philips curve here and say that the only thing the government can do to cut down on unemployment is to increase inflation, well which is worse? How do the politicians know? You might as well flip a coin to decide which is preferable, an unemployment rate of five percent or an inflation rate of ten. Which leads us to…

  1. Package deal problem

Politicians are voted in as a package deal, all voting means is that they were preferred to all other politicians available, they do not know what is the most important issue to their constituents, and their constituents cannot vote for only that which is most important to them, its all or nothing, you can’t say “I want Bush’s policy on immigration but Obama on abortion”

  1. Primary problem

Far, far fewer people vote for the politicians who actually end up running for the final position than the final vote, this means that combined with he package deal problem choices are even more narrowed

  1. Education problem

People are conditioned to follow a certain way of thinking or view of history, with a control of education then certain world views are perpetuated from year to year. Why the hell is it that Americans think that it’s normal to have two major political parties and nothing else? That two different ideologies can possibly encompass pretty much everyone in the country and that so called “independents” can be represented by this?

  1. Domination problem

Just because you have 51 percent of the vote why is it that you should be able to do what you want to others? You have the right to confiscate their property, pass laws that affect them and which, if they violate, you can use force against them, and you can do what you want with “their country”. Why is it a positive thing that the majority should be able to force other people to follow their way? We can all understand the need for a basic protection of property rights and legal proceedings against force, but as you can see by the political divisions throughout the world, at any point beyond this the agreements become increasingly small indeed.

8

I was chomping at the bit to respond, but Neodoxy really hit everything on the head. In addition to your police example though, I may add that the government monopolized the service in the first place. It’s not even entirely a matter of the attitudes of the society who view police protection as being state-run, it’s just matter-of-factly the case that when the state-monopolized police system fell, there was a power vacuum. In a market, you’d have other participants there to fill the market share (theoretically, not guaranteed).

You can say what you want about the invisible hand, but it’s not so much a matter of people magically being nice to each other, it’s a matter of incentive structures and what the likely results will be. Smith was right to point out that in a market, when a person makes a product with the intention of making a profit, they are implicitly fulfilling the need of society in some fashion. So the end is not to make society a happier place necessarily, but that’s what winds up happening anyway.

9

That is serious mincing words. The chance of your vote having a marginal effect on the outcome of an election is the chance of an election being “decided by one vote”. E.g., Politican A receives one vote more than politician B or it is a tie. Voting for effect is stupidity. Even if your vote ever did “count” it would still be subject to the also extreme unlikelihood that the candidate makes good on his promises.

10

“There is simply no magic bullet to speak for these things though. I am not a Kurd, I do not know what is best for the Kurds - these are just unique situations of human action. There is no universal application of co-ordination here, nothing to look at, and nothing that can be said.”

Again, I have to disagree. If the Kurdish people could stand for parliament, elect representatives (and petition or write to their representatives), vote for politicians that could protect their interests, freely leave the country, publish their opinions and stage demonstrations, the circumstances surrounding their repression simply would not have occurred.

Just because there is no framework under the Austro-Libertarian model for extreme scenarios such as this one doesn’t mean that such a framework does not exist.

Neodoxy, I believe your metaphor is a little mixed: if a company stops its production overnight and the former workers starve, that’s an argument that industry is necessary, though perhaps with government intervention.

That said, I’ll sojourn into a case study of my own in regards to the viability of devolution or decentralisation of power: that of the South immediately post-segregation, as per the ruling of Brown vs. board. I don’t think there is a better example of local versus federal interests than the presidential intervention in local affairs. Students were prevented from gaining an education by the local forces, federal forces intervened and allowed them to continue their education. Given the complete devolution of power to local governance (or the people themselves), the rights of the minority would have been trammelled. In other instances, the central government may be more enlightened than the electorate, such as in the UK and the purported support for the death penalty among the people. But I can’t in good conscience make any distinction between adult citizens that would deny them the right to vote. I had a friend whose father was a Somalian politician who tried explaining to me that Islamic Republics were more fairer than our democratic system, since they simply got the smartest imams on a board and asked them to pick the best candidate of perhaps three from one party. Totally immune to any form of abuses, that system… As evidenced in Saudi Arabia, for example.

There are numerous objections to the privatisation and localisation of police forces, which I’ll delineate.

The first is the uniformity of training received. In different areas of the country that I live in (the UK), the police receive similar training with any new techniques being transmitted and updated fairly regularly by a central board. That way if you require assistance, wish to report a crime, or you’re being arrested, you will likely receive similar treatment no matter where in the country this occurs.

The previous point is closely related to a further two points, namely the possibility of widely divergent laws throughout a country and vast variations in the pay and training of the police force within the country. Deprived areas at the moment receive quite a lot of police attention, but if they constitute a “ward” or “council” for a local government there is a distinct possibility that any local police force to emerge would be insufficient to protect local citizens, or worse, would enforce behaviour that was once regarded crime (but now would be seen as acceptable).

While it may be beneficial in some areas to have laws match local customs, the possibility of criminal tourism could also arise, where someone desiring to perform an illegal action would travel to an area with a lower police density, or where criminal prosecution of that action is less enforced, or perhaps they could rely on the lack of central databases to travel extensively to avoid recognition by local law enforcement.

Another issue is that of legitimacy of the police. In the country I live in, an inquest found that a police officer illegally killed a man during a protest. If there is no higher authority than the private companies and no central authority to investigate them, then the companies could easily become corrupt and act in their own self interest. In a democratic society, the people have the capability to change politicians who support corrupt institutions to ones that are more likely to set up investigations for them, not to mention can directly petition a government official to set up an inquest. They have no official recourse with a company other than the laws the government sets for the company (such as the statute of frauds).

Finally, there is a possibility that local courts and local law could cause a sharp decline in minority rights and a corresponding decline in quality of life in developed countries. In areas that have a high Muslim population for example, Sharia courts and Mutaween would significantly disadvantage the women and non-Muslims living there, as the non-Muslims would be subject to a special tax and women’s testimony would be regarded as less reliable than a man’s. Not to mention domestic abuse would be largely ignored.

As for the problems you illustrate with democracy, I’d argue that at worst, they’re common to all forms of political office.

In the first example you gave, while it is indubitably true that an elected politician will pursue short term goals in the interest of popularity and to increase the chances of re-election (notably so in the lead up to an election, where they’ll disproportionately peddle local interests), if there is no mechanism for expulsion from power short of revolution, then they have no reason to even pursue short term goals for the country and can act purely in their own self-interest. While far-sighted legislation is rare (such as the adoption of the Kyoto protocol or the announced support of Constitutional reform towards the end of the Brown government), it’s far, far more likely you’ll find examples of self-interested dictatorships.

As to the second example, well, it’s an issue of micropolitics. Market research and exit polls are given a large amount of attention because in the aggregate, if the decisions an individual makes are based on circumstances held in common to the majority, they effect change. The informed consumer will boycott, petition, write to the board of directors and encourage their friends to do the same and there is a complimentary example in each instance applicable to the informed voter.

As for the voting knowledge problem: it depends whether you prefer argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam*. Personally, when dealing with issues that affect everyone, I prefer ad populum: at least everyone provides a check on everyone else.*

As for bureaucratic accountability: in an anarchocapitalistic scenario, who would take responsibility for the spill? Would BP express their sorrow to the shareholders for the loss of capital and that would be the end of it? I’m fairly sure that there isn’t any profit to be had in corporate investigations or protecting the ecology, so we may be left with the tragedy of the commons: rational self-interest leading to a worse world than collective interests.

As for policy knowledge, one pragmatic test for the success of a scheme is whether they’re re-elected. If it is possible to make an informed decision in advance about the likelihood of success or failure of a certain policy, or whether one interest is worth pursuing over another, a government will have the means of obtaining the data and making an informed decision. If nobody can make that decision, then either nothing will be done, or someone will make a guess. Whether it’s a democratically elected government or not is immaterial… Unless the electorate have already elected a government operating on a platform that they will address inflation over other concerns. (for example).

The package deal problem, primary problem and education (or appeal to tradition) problems are all appreciable, but they’re resolved by an increase in democracy, not a decrease: a greater reliance on referendums, coupled with a respect for neutral framing and documentation that increases the electorate’s knowledge on these issues. While it may be insulting for someone’s decisions in a job to be decided for them by fiat and some of the decisions require specialised knowledge, it would be ridiculous to argue that the electorate couldn’t grasp most issues. The legislature and government is drawn from the electorate, the electorate are trusted to make informed decisions about the platform a candidate runs on and in an anarcho-capitalistic society, all political decisions would be made by citizens anyway.

As for a tyranny of the majority, minority concerns can be protected by a well written constitution that is ratified by the people. As long as they have the right of assembly and petition and the right to publish a minority opinion, it is unlikely that they will be subjected to the same scale of harassment that a despised minority group would be under a dictator, or the “one party state” imposing the minority’s view on the majority.

As for Somalia, I’ll accept that anarchy may be preferable to a dictatorship, but as you pointed out yourself, a citizen living in a democratic society that suddenly discovers there is no law enforcement (or as an analogue, government) may be enticed to violence.

That said, I’m not antithetical to the idea of a stateless solution, I just feel that certain relics of the state are beneficial to the average citizen and increase their quality of life. In the UK, that’d include state funded education, healthcare, roads, clean water supply and access to public libraries and galleries. I’m somewhat hostile to the idea of anarcho-capitalism though, as I take a cynical approach to corporations: the primary interest of a corporation is an increase of profits and the primary interest of the board of directors is an increase in their own wealth. This does not predicate immorality, but it does imply amorality, as in the instances of IBM continuing to service devices detailing prisoner executions in concentration camps or Nestlé selling baby formula in countries where babies contract diarrhoea from the water supply. The issue isn’t so much as the individual members of these companies being on the side of the Nazis or wanting third world babies to die as much as wishing to operate at a profit, which is their primary legal obligation. Not to mention the CEO of a company has no accountability to the people: they’re accountable to the shareholders of course, but they have no requirements to appease their average customer or someone affected by their business practices that doesn’t happen to have a huge block of their shares.

Another issue I’d have with a plutocratic society I expounded on facebook: Some tangible limits on free markets are appreciated by those operating companies, others are not. Among the limits are consumer safety laws, prohibiting the sale of items that are dangerous to those purchasing them. Anti-monopoly laws prevent companies from having a control on the market, which prevents price fixing designed to cause unemployment for competitors, competitors that may even provide a better service. Minimum wage laws ensure that people are not being employed as slaves and living below poverty lines. Advertising regulation both ensures that potential customers aren’t being deceived and that Pepsi does not reproduce the Nazi Germany Fanta adverts. Laws against counterfeit goods that are not covered under the purview of customer safety are purely to protect business interests and wouldn’t exist in a free market economy without some enforceable regulations. Otherwise you’d build a better mousetrap, nobody would recognise such abstract concepts such as “intellectual property” and whoever could reproduce the design for the cheapest amount or make the most garish show of advertising it would make the most profit off of it. There’d be no incentive for innovation and any industrialist would head off via biplane to the Colorado mountains.

My final gripe is with a Randian society where those with money were more successful and thus more virtuous (and thus increasingly more successful). Such a society would first only be possible with some form of eugenics – a serious regression in terms of human rights. The society also doesn’t address a fundamental unspoken imbalance, inherited wealth. Ayn Rand seemed deeply opposed to the idea that anyone that didn’t earn their way in society benefited, but did not publish a polemic about how those born into poverty and those born into prosperity should receive the same diet, education and company until they were old enough to prove their worth. Under this scenario at least the variables other than “genetic lottery” are controlled for. However, it is human nature to provide for progeny as best as possible and some individuals apply the concept to their fellow countrymen, where a high quality of life for their fellow citizens is almost as important as the security of their children’s future… in fact, the latter may be contingent on the future.

My background is political rather than economic (though I accept that they’re intertwined), so it’s interesting to approach the problem from a different perspective. I have to borrow a quote from Hitchens book, actually: “ ‘The terms Hutu and Tutsi,’ he said severely, ‘are merely ideological constructs, describing different relationships to the means and mode of production.’ But of course!”

Always refreshing to obtain a novel vantage.

11

Again, I have to disagree. If the Kurdish people could stand for parliament, elect representatives (and petition or write to their representatives), vote for politicians that could protect their interests, freely leave the country, publish their opinions and stage demonstrations, the circumstances surrounding their repression simply would not have occurred.

  1. How do you know what is best for these people? The fact is none of us do, we are not them. This is not a question that can be solved by applied science, if it could the problem wouldn’t exist.

  2. What do you think is a better situation for people, all things being equal, who clearly lack the power to fend for their interests in a country that treats them as second class:

a) To try to work within the system

b) leaving the system

There are some basic economic fallacies you commited in my skim of the rest of the article (such as min wage laws, monopoly, etc); hopefully other people will cover them as I don’t feel like it at the moment. But they are all conclusions many of us intuitively thought were true at one point.

My final gripe is with a Randian society where those with money were more successful and thus more virtuous (and thus increasingly more successful). Such a society would first only be possible with some form of eugenics – a serious regression in terms of human rights. The society also doesn’t address a fundamental unspoken imbalance, inherited wealth.

I don’t think many of us are actual Randians (I most certainly am not) -but it isn’t a question of virtue, it is a statement about what production entails, how wealth actually comes about, and what can and can not be said about inter subjective studies. As for the next sentence the conclusion simply doesn’t follow the premise. It jumped to a conclusion, I think?

Hopefully I helped with some questions you had

12

Edit: I see the other posters are handling it well.

13

gamerunknown,

Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson” …a few hours well worth spending especially toward making your discussions here exponentially more effective.

14

Oh lord, I’m going to have a hard time tackling this without writing a book, so I may not be able to address everyone one of your points, for the sake of brevity I’m not going to be able to reply to every point, if there is a point which I do not address which you want me to address then please point it out.

" I believe your metaphor is a little mixed: if a company stops its production overnight and the former workers starve, that’s an argument that industry is necessary, though perhaps with government intervention."

You’re right the metaphor was flawed, I thought it was at the time but I couldn’t pinpoint why this was. What I was trying to show is that just because something doesn’t happen overnight does not mean that a system cannot work or is not good, for instance if you’re having a stomach ache and I give you something that will settle your stomach and this doesn’t work instantly then this does not prove that what I give you doesn’t work, just that it takes a while to take into effect. Furthermore i people do not look for another solution then no other solution will occur. If I want cake but there’s no cake to be had then I will eventually settle for muffins if they’re around, but if I cannot think of a world without cake then I will not eat the muffins. This was the case with the strike, the people of the city could not conceptualize a private police system, so they did not pursue it, this does not mean that it was not a viable alternative, the cutoff also the cut off happened very quickly, it would have taken a bit to make the muffins once the cake was cut off. J

As for your point about Brown V. Board I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say so forgive me if there is misinterpretation. Minority rights were trampled on, they were trampled on for something like 300 years. There was no real majority abolitionist cause until about 1850 and the majority shift towards abolitionism was in many ways caused by a war against the rights of the minority, the civil war. The fact that you say that the government can be more enlightened than the people is also an odd one in defense of democracy. Democracy in its purest form is hostile to the will of the minority, in the United States there is a war against minority groups such as drug users, illegal immigrants, and indeed anarchists, the first two with especially negative effects.

“The first is the uniformity of training received. In different areas of the country that I live in (the UK), the police receive similar training with any new techniques being transmitted and updated fairly regularly by a central board. That way if you require assistance, wish to report a crime, or you’re being arrested, you will likely receive similar treatment no matter where in the country this occurs.

The previous point is closely related to a further two points, namely the possibility of widely divergent laws throughout a country and vast variations in the pay and training of the police force within the country. Deprived areas at the moment receive quite a lot of police attention, but if they constitute a “ward” or “council” for a local government there is a distinct possibility that any local police force to emerge would be insufficient to protect local citizens, or worse, would enforce behavior that was once regarded crime (but now would be seen as acceptable).”

There is a general tendency towards standardization on the free market, for instance currency, time zones, and plugs (such as the USB) were all standardized under pretty much free market conditions. Most people have a fairly similar will for basic laws, which are likely to be just about the only laws enforced in an anarchist society. Law agencies will have an incentive to work together and standardize, both to reduce conflict and to make their agencies look more attractive. Also, no one wants criminals or those who are dangerous to just run around free, they would have that incentive to catch him, as well as the fact that they gain reputations for efficiency and effectiveness. Also, this problem is also prevalent in a multi-national statist society. Nations have differing levels incentive to bring criminals in other countries who happen to flee to their boarders, for instance Argentina after World War II protected many from Nazi Germany within its borders.

“Another issue is that of legitimacy of the police. In the country I live in, an inquest found that a police officer illegally killed a man during a protest. If there is no higher authority than the private companies and no central authority to investigate them, then the companies could easily become corrupt and act in their own self interest. In a democratic society, the people have the capability to change politicians who support corrupt institutions to ones that are more likely to set up investigations for them, not to mention can directly petition a government official to set up an inquest. They have no official recourse with a company other than the laws the government sets for the company (such as the statute of frauds).”

Police brutality will be directly punishable either through law, or it will lead to that police company looking less attractive to consumers. There are many examples of police brutality in the United States which have not been rectified.

“Finally, there is a possibility that local courts and local law could cause a sharp decline in minority rights and a corresponding decline in quality of life in developed countries. In areas that have a high Muslim population for example, Sharia courts and Mutaween would significantly disadvantage the women and non-Muslims living there, as the non-Muslims would be subject to a special tax and women’s testimony would be regarded as less reliable than a man’s. Not to mention domestic abuse would be largely ignored.”

This mostly depends upon the society, but the fact is that why is it that if the majority opposed this in an anarchist society that they wouldn’t in a democratic society? Most western democracies existed for about a century before allowing women to vote, and for much of this women were considered nothing other than property and had few rights.

“I’d argue that at worst, they’re common to all forms of political office.”

For the most part yes, but also this implies means that anarchism is favorable in these respects

So as far as I can tell you agree with me about the short term incentives part, this is an inherent problem with the democratic system, implying that the government should be limited and not trusted in this regard.

You can find plenty of cases of short run dictatorships, but this is in large part because they had to constantly worry about revolution or being overthrown, they were not secure in their positions, so they could not look towards the future. Also I have to say that I am slightly dubious of the whole monarchy thing, I think that it has a lot of merits but I am a great believer in the general perspective, the attitude associated with the institution in question. They were dictators; this was barely a legitimate position, whereas monarch is generally accepted and secure. These people were also usually military pigs who knew little about anything that didn’t have to deal with guns. If you have control over a farm for five years then you will farm it for everything it’s worth within those five years, you will not care about what state you leave it in, if you own the farm for the rest of your life you will care about conserving it. The same is true with countries.

You still have not addressed what advantage people get from being educated, especially not the masses who will actually bring about the policies. The way I would describe most of the people who I know who vote would be “uninformed and unprincipled”. I have a friend who is a conservative who has said “yeah you’re right” tentatively with every issue I’ve ever disagreed with him on and he still holds his views, I have a friend who is a democrat who literally said “free markets mean higher taxes” and “the government spends trillions of dollars a year on medical research”. I pressed him about the later question and he held to the trillions number. I don’t know if you’ve looked at the budget recently, but spoiler alert, medical research isn’t on there. Modern politics does not encourage free thinking, or independent thought, or even educated though either in pure ideology or in the specific politicians policies.

Just because you prefer decisions by the majority doesn’t mean the majority will know how to achieve their ends, combined with the above problem. Support of a government implies that it can solve problems. If the people don’t know how to solve the problem then it doesn’t even matter.

“in an anarchocapitalistic scenario, who would take responsibility for the spill?”

British Petroleum

“Would BP express their sorrow to the shareholders for the loss of capital and that would be the end of it?”

No, they would be held economically accountable to the people who they have harmed.

“I’m fairly sure that there isn’t any profit to be had in corporate investigations or protecting the ecology,”

All companies in such conditions would be incentivized to regulate themselves because if the spill occurred they would be economically accountable for all the damage they have caused, also those who might be harmed could also likely do things either preemptively by requesting to regulate, or forcing BP or anyone else to be investigated continually before building whatever.

“ so we may be left with the tragedy of the commons: rational self-interest leading to a worse world than collective interests.”

No we don’t, in a free market legal organizations would be hired by those affected and those who were infuriated by the spill and BP would be forced to pay back the damage it caused. It broke the law and harmed the property of others and should be held directly accountable for such actions, it won’t have the government to protect it. Even other legal organizations couldn’t alter the simple fact that BP broke the law.

Also Bureaucratic Accountability is of little consequence in an anarchist society, any groups or organization will be strictly limited to what people are willing to pay and there is a direct incentive for efficiency, this is not present in a statist society where indeed there are rewards for inefficiency.

The policy knowledge and package deal problems are, as I see it, totally fixed in the case of a referendum, I had not previously considered that. The biggest problem with this is of course the fact that referendums have historically been exceedingly limited in actual usage, and they have increased problems of voter turnout. Also, no, many people don’t understand a good deal of issues.

The education problem however, has not been addressed. The fact is that certain ideologies are perpetuated over time, people have no incentive to look at things clearly, and values continue and are perpetuated by public education.

All of these problems are, let me be quite clear, either against representative democracy, or against government involvement in the first place. It is for either limiting or getting rid of the government and leaving the problem to the free market.

“state funded education, healthcare”

State education tends to be pretty bad no matter where you go and it harms innovation and higher quality education. My step father is British and I believe that the term he used when talking about what the public education system did to him was “screw over”. Free market healthcare in America was also excellent. Before government interference it took about a week’s wage to cover a year’s worth of healthcare, but then the government began to intervene and prices rise. Also “your” government helps to regulate the number of doctors, and I know in countries such as Sweden the healthcare system is terrible, and American interventions have made the admittedly high quality of American healthcare very, very hard to pay for many people.

Roads is one area where it is hard for me to argue that government control does not help, although I must say that in a free market there still would be a decent road service supplied by organization, in the U.S many of the so called “federal” turnpikes are funded by toll booth as it is. And no one would stop voluntary organizations from funding roads.

A clean water supply would not be a problem, it can be funded privately. Hell people sell it in bottles when the government gives it out practically free! :stuck_out_tongue:

“Anti-monopoly laws prevent companies from having a control on the market, which prevents price fixing designed to cause unemployment for competitors, competitors that may even provide a better service. Minimum wage laws ensure that people are not being employed as slaves and living below poverty lines.”

Okay I’m getting worn out here so I’ll go fast. Monopolies are usually funded by the government in one way or another, for instance the railroad trusts in America were given huge subsidies by the federal government and Carnegie and Rockefeller were only able to gain large market shares (far less in Carnegies case he wasn’t even a monopoly) by dramatically cutting prices.

Minimum wage laws, as well intentioned as they are, are abominations, they hurt those worst off in society. If labor produces 10 dollars an hour then I will pay about this amount for it, however this means that if I pay 11 dollars an hour I will lose money and if I pay too many workers 10 dollars an hour then I will go out of business. Thusly minimum wage laws raise unemployment and it causes those who need jobs most to be jobless, this is a well established economic fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMMN3UIQmEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

Also regulations on wages help to keep them to be sticky downwards, they cannot adjust. This is almost universally credited with perpetuating business cycles. Indeed Rothbard accredited government propping up wages with the reason for the great depression being anything but a minor recession

“Advertising regulation both ensures that potential customers aren’t being deceived and that Pepsi does not reproduce the Nazi Germany Fanta adverts. Laws against counterfeit goods that are not covered under the purview of customer safety are purely to protect business interests and wouldn’t exist in a free market economy without some enforceable regulations.”

Counterfeiting can be checked on a free market, as can product safety and lying advertisements. In the absence of government regulations people would turn more towards things like Consumer Reports and UL. The first is a very popular and respected magazine in the U.S that assesses quality, whilst the later is a technological regulations board which covers tens of thousands of goods in America and it is privately run. Free markets can regulate themselves and people will demand safe and regulated products. Your very concern shows this.

“My final gripe is with a Randian society where those with money were more successful and thus more virtuous (and thus increasingly more successful). Such a society would first only be possible with some form of eugenics – a serious regression in terms of human rights.”

Why? I’m sorry I fail to see how you go from success= virtue to in order for success = virtue all those who are less successful must be prevented from breeding. Rand would have never suggested sterilizing the poor.

“The society also doesn’t address a fundamental unspoken imbalance, inherited wealth.”

An inheritance tax is probably the best tax, I agree, however a free market society would start to eradicate poverty throughout the world and improve education. Rags to riches is possible, and it is certainly possible to move from poverty to middle class. A free society would likely give more reason for the young to work hard and really appreciate wealth creation, and in the end it is who provides the best product who will get the green.

IM DONE!! HAHAHAHAAH I’M FINALLY DONE WITH THE REPLY! :’D

I really, really hope this satisfies

15

The society also doesn’t address a fundamental unspoken imbalance, inherited wealth.

What must be addressed? My property shall be disposed of as I see fit. Do you favor government intervention in the giving of gifts? I “unfairly” give gifts in an unbalanced way all the time: I am more likely to give a gift to a relative or friend than I am to a random person on the street. What is the difference if it’s given, in accordance with my wishes, after I die?

As for the Baltimore example, William explained the best reason for it. Another supplementary reason is that Baltimore and Maryland have very strict gun ownership laws. Criminals in Baltimore know they are far more likely to find an unarmed individual when they attempt to rob a business or a home. The laws give criminals a great incentive to harm people because the laws infringe upon the right to self-defense.

16
  1. What do you think is a better situation for people, all things being equal, who clearly lack the power to fend for their interests in a country that treats them as second class:

a) To try to work within the system

b) leaving the system

C: Revolution

17

Gamersunknown,

Do you think you can dedicate a few hours to mises media area of the site? If you arent familiar with the Austrian tradition I think you will be quite satisfied.

I promise http://mises.org/media.aspx

18

D. Evolution

19

D. Evolution… Devolution…DEVO

Q: Are We Not Men?

A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCpxSzacbyc !

But forget the revolution, viva la insurrection !!

20

Oh hello guys!

I’ll just copy and paste the beginning of our disagreement, and we’ll see where we go … ok?

  • Liam Untitled Democracy is authoritarian. Instead of being told by a single dictator, people are commanded by the majority.
    May 6 at 10:17pm ·


  • Kieran A neighbour of mine voted no because they supported Labour. Liam, ignoring the equivocating, can you recommend any superior form of government?
    May 6 at 10:25pm ·


  • Liam Untitled There are two systems on how decisions are made in society, fundamentally. Either people choose for themselves, or they arrogate them to a committee or dictator. There is no freedom in democracy.
    May 6 at 10:57pm ·

Ok. That is my view … I’m prepared to defend it.