False. States are gangs of thieves and murderers. If peaceful cooperation exists at all it’s because ordinary people choose to cooperate, not because a bunch of murderers - cops and soldiers - coerce the population into behaving in a civilized way.
Of course, that’s the basic fact that non-libertarians either fail to see, or don’t want to admit.
Rich people have a lot less power without the state. Since they are limited to their own funds the amount of damage they can do is curtailed.
The state can confiscate as much wealth as it wants for its ends. In this way the state is infinitely more destructive than any individual could ever be, no matter how wealthy and how much of a jerk they are.
Just for kicks, the US government with all its military might and bloated budgets can’t even crack down on street gangs properly. What makes him think that a rich person could gain control using the same methods?
Exactly cops and soldiers arise out of prior production. They are the ultimate consumers.
How does this run counter to the point that I was making? I understand that for most of human history services such as the police haven’t been provided by the state and even in current times, people tend to avoid making use of the police and courts in conflict resolution. Nonetheless, the point stands that the superiority of anarchism can’t be shown a priori.
Thanks for ignoring my post.
all it takes is a sprinkle of thymology
Lies! Name one state that protected the individual rights of all of its citizens.
Are you asking me if a market can perform better than a monopoly?
So you’re saying that markets have not been proven to be superior to monopolies. Is that correct?
You brought it up first, and because you are Juan, great man of libertarianism, I presume it is relevant. Were you being irrelevant before?
But that is also a contradiction of your prior claims that I was being whimsical. So which is it? Do I make arbitrary decisions or not? Do I choose ice cream the way I choose morality, and vice versa?
All I am asking is that you stake out a consistent position. If it is ok for you to ask me about ice cream, it is ok for me to ask you about ice cream.
Yes, and yet, we must compare institutional arrangements. Ultimately, if the state reduces the “total level” (I understand the difficulties in aggregating coercion) of violence in society in some sense it has protected your right.
And yet, by enforcing contracts etc. the state clearly does help cooperation between individuals. Certainly there is a point at which states become inimical to the division of labour and peaceful cooperation between individuals and clearly there is some form of competition within the state that will produce the best outcomes. My point is that blanket statements about the state preventing trade or whatever just won’t do, some form of comparison between a stateless society and a certain state of state must take place.
The problem is, you’re making sweeping statements that I don’t think you can support. There’s a lot of literature dealing with these and related problems, you’ve not read it. Granted, I’ve not read all, of even most of it, but I try to avoid such grandidose claims.
Well, we really need some sort of criteria with which we can evaluate the various arrangements before we can start asking which is better. Personally, I think Rothbard’s theory of welfare was one of the weakest parts of his economics and I think Kirzner makes a good case for some sort of coordination criterion in his “Coordination as Goodness” essay.
Name one sort of Mutual Defense Association or whatever you favour that has protected the individual rights of all of its customers. I don’t think you can, so I don’t think it’s a fair challenge you asking the same of me. Now, I can provide you with plenty of evidence to support the assertion that the state has protected and enforced the rights of some citizens, and depending on the state that some will be a sizable amount.
nirgrahamUK, I agree to some extent. But even that wouldn’t really be definitive.
if you want to be definitive you will rarely open your mouth…
Ha! Like that will stop him.
I asked you a yes or no question. Are markets superior to monopolies or not?
It’s not a fair challenge. I never made the positive claim you did.
Now back up your statement, or retract it.
Not what you claimed. Show some honesty in debate Giles. I tire of calling you on this stuff.
Buncombe.
We can easily see that any time some interloper makes demands of other parties’ trade–to which is clearly isn’t part–that the outcome would be worse off in the estimations of the other parties involved. No comparison ala positivism is required.
As LS pointed out, markets are superior to monopolies in serving consumers. You’re saying its possible for the state to provide for security. It is physically possible in that the state could through luck manage to overcome all the logistical problems of being a state. However, it is impossible for this to occur once you put self-interested agents into the equation.
A certain state of state is still a state and in this state the state is a monopoly and has no incentives to follow through on its stated purpose. If someone has no incentive to do something, they won’t do it.
Monopolies function worse than competitive markets
Yeah I have. I read things all the time and I obviously discuss my opinions with other people. I wasn’t always an anarchist.
My personal belief is that there is no definition of the state that meaningfully distinguishes the something like US government from any other entity. This is because I do not believe physical force to be the only way controlling others to obtain a monopoly. Even if such a definition did prove meaningful it would still not be necessary for any discussion since we can view all groups of people empirically. Saying such and such a group is a government doesn’t advance the discussion any more than identifying that identifying that a square is also a rhombus.
On the flip-side, I also believe we can never get out of anarchy due to the anarchic relationship that individuals have with the state. This point can be expanded further…
The point is I don’t think in terms of government/no government. Here it is monopoly vs competitive market. I hope the reason I can now make “sweeping statements” is now more clear.
On what basis are we comparing them?
This just isn’t true, since Hume and Smith economists have realized that assumptions of benevolence with regards to political actors are unwarranted (and Mises and Hayek later went on to challenge the assumptions of omniscience). The whole problem of political economy is to find incentives structures that will cause self interest actors serve the common good, or at least to do as little harm as possible.
You keep talking about incentives in the abstract, and without doubt, incentives matter. The point is that different institutions will have different incentives and you can’t make blanket statements about the incentives of states.
OK, I still doubt you’ve read on all these issues. Your answers certainly give that impression.
Use the standard you were using in this post,
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/critique-time/8312/75
I repeat
Answer it.
You also did not respond with proof of your positive claim below (bolded).
Have you retracted it?
If you have a monopoly on the use of force you can get whatever you want. If you do not have this monopoly you have to work with other people through a series of voluntary agreements to get what you want. In the process of achieving your goals, you help other people with theirs’. We call the first case “government” and the second case “free market”.
I can make blanket statements about things in abstract. This is because I pitch my arguments in terms of definitions. For example, I can say that a square ALWAYS has 4 sides because this is the definition of a square. Similarly I can say that government is a monopoly on the use of force because that’s what a government is. When you have a monopoly on the use of force you can make other people do stuff (this is what force means). When you can make other people do stuff, and you want stuff, you will make them do stuff you want. The only assumption I have made is that government has to be made up of people and that people have wants they try to satisfy. Nuff said.
My answers are not so far off than the answers many on this forum would give you. Many of us are firm believers in anarchy and oppose any form of state control.
Absolutely not true, that depends on how rich they are as a multi-billionaire could easy take over a small state.
You just made the argument for why a state can provide more security than an anarcho-capitalist society.
Excellent point.