I agree. But there is nothing in Hoppe’s anarch-cap society to keep the insurers from lying about the necessity of having them. The question morphs into one of the degree to which a cartel is willing to expropriate and how long it can last at any level of expropriation. I think it is much the same with states.
If history has born out the “expected outcome” - presumably that it is easier to take by force than do anything else - why don’t more (or all!) people take by force?
You don’t seem to understand the fallacy of the argument from ignorance, however. You’re making a deterministic (i.e. logically necessary) claim based only on the apparent absence of any contrary evidence. However, empirical evidence does not constitute logical proof.
We have to define legality for this to mean anything.
As i said, most people are not going to have the level of armament as the insurers in Hoppe’s anarcho cap world.
Please tell me what the law is about.
Their competitors would be in league with them. See the original post for this premise.
Something like sovereign immunity would exist by virtue of lack of means to enforce any norms against the guy with the guns.
Gangs don’t. They demand protection payments from people in their turf. There’s a book (in part) about this in Chicago, called Gangleader for a Day, by Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh.
Is such a society possible? For how long? Who in such a society is safe? Monopolists will go away over time. So do governments. But the whole discussion arose because the vision is of a society without them altogether.
I will read the link. But the crux is, in any case, that there will be opportunity for territorialist monopolists of force, these are very likely to arise given man’s preference for low exertion and high preference satisfaction, and their existence jeopardizes the safety of individuals.
States don’t form and are not held together through the explicit use of force, they do it through ideology.
“You hate the wars, but you still love Uncle Sam, don’t you?”
I can’t see how an insurance company could accomplish this, even if they wanted too, they simply wouldn’t have the ideological support.
A non-zero probability of an “event” occurring doesn’t mean that probability is therefore (arbitrarily) close to one.
Can you support this claim with any reasoning? One or more syllogisms would be best for me.
– better marksmanship among the proletariat would counter this.
I think force plays a part. I think a person can more easily rationalize a decision if force is opposed to any different choice. But even if force were a negligible factor, an insurance company could achieve popular ‘craving’ the same way a state accomplishes it or the same way companies persuade people that they need to buy crap they don’t need.
Who’s to say what people “need” or “don’t need”?
Ok, i grant the first two. However, all else being equal, the goal i described is preferred over its absence. The real question is whether that goal is better achieved (ie with fewer costs) through a state system or an anarcho-capitalist system as described by Hoppe. I’m contending that as he describes the latter, the two are the same with different labels attached to the elements.
I never claimed that no one ever argues that… Only that those cases are few and far between, and have no effect on a force monopolist’s ability to use force to expropriate from others.
I don’t think it’s too loose. People in the anarcho-capitalist society described by Hoppe buy insurance to protect against aggression. The insurer from whom they might buy insurance would have capability to (Hoppe, p 50): “expel, capture, or kill every invader” and “counterattack and kill… from the top of the government hierarchy … on downward[.]” If every individual were to be as well armed, why would any individual buy this type of insurance? When would such a person find time to specialize in his own trade?
The number of individuals in a territory is finite. Therefore,1) the demand for insurance against aggression in that territory and 2) the number of individuals producing insurance against aggression in that territory are finite. Therefore, organization of a cartel is always possible (not necessarily easy or probable).
Insurance against aggression requires the possession of a level of force necessary to protect against reasonable levels of aggression. This is necessarily greater than the average level of force possessed by individuals in the territory. Those in control of such levels of force are humans, therefore preferring maximum preference satisfaction at minimum expenditure. Among those in business (ie, having that amount of force), some (specifically, those with high time preference) will calculate that they will earn more from expropriation than from honest business.
Of course. I was thinking more along the lines of kings and armies endlessly seeking conquest.
I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that territorial monopolies of force will arise, no matter what we call them. I believe that those monopolies will seek ultimate decision making authority. I’m looking for a persuasive argument as to why they will not form in the first place.
It may be in some circumstances. He asked why the state today spends so much on persuading people of its legitimacy. Those in control of it may well believe it is cheaper to spend those amounts than to use the force at their disposal.
Why? A party having force can seek to consolidate force in a territory through whatever means he deems economical. If destroying opposition is the (perceived by the actor) cheapest method, a force monopolist might arise that way. Of course, if that actor turns out to be wrong, then he will lose his force. But another may arise and choose his method more carefully.
If you’ll recall, my original question was whether there is any means to prevent the formation of a cartel of force by those holding force. If the majority of force (possibly even less) in a territory joins the cartel, then the market may not be able to break that cartel, as the market ceases to discipline the members of that cartel.
Sure.
I believe that i said they would destroy opposition of force. It’s not profitable to use force for its own sake. If a person fearing the use of force against himself gives in to expropriation demands, then there is no physical conflict, so the force monopolist maximizes income/expenditure. If a person resists, then the force monopolist may deem it worthwhile to use force on him to persuade others to prefer giving in, so that it maximizes income/expenditure for most people in the territory. Only mass resistance by force would be unprofitable, as it would cost to use force on those resisting, it would suffer some casualties, and it would destroy future income streams (if it kills resisters).
The expected outcome is that many parties having force will determine (not that they’re correct in their calculations) that they most easily achieve their ends by expropriation.
davery, I sympathize with your position and, at the same time, I agree with most of your responders. At every moment (including right now) and in every society, the size of the state (the amount of institutionalized, “legitimate” aggression) reflects the state (pun intended) of education and enlightement within said society. If such enlightenment exists, there would be no difference between a minimal state (minarchy) and anarchy. If such enlightenment is lacking, any initial state of anarchy would quickly converge to a state reflecting the fact. Hence, the ultimate importance of education and persuasion.
A non-zero probability multiplied by an unlimited number of chances does indeed mean the event will happen. A non-zero probability multiplied by a very large number of chances may or may not be close to one. We simply cannot know. But although historical evidence can’t tell us mankind’s future behavior, i think it’s safe to say that people will be seeking territorial monopolies of force as long as people (and the earth) exist. What i’m after is a reason why they will be less likely to do so in an anarcho capitalist environment.
First off, Davery, you forgot to respond to this other post of mine.
Please prove that the goal you described is always and necessarily preferred over its absence.
Please prove that such cases are always and necessarily “few and far between” and that they always and necessarily “have no effect”.
First off, if you don’t think it’s too loose, then you’d have no problem answering my questions. However, I don’t see how you did answer them.
Second, I think you’re either misunderstanding or misinterpreting what you quoted from Hoppe. (By the way, it’s on page 51 in the PDF version I have open, namely this one.) The context of that quote is clearly that of defense-insurance agencies operating adjacent/near to states. As I mentioned before, however, I take issue with Hoppe here in assuming - at least implicitly - that insurance companies would always and necessarily also be defense companies. I see no reason why separate militias and the like could not exist.
Third and most importantly, your admission that it’s “loose” is the same thing as admitting that it’s not logically sound. If you’re trying to make logical arguments here - as I assume you are - then you won’t engage in such “looseness”.
Can you explain what you mean by “demand for insurance against aggression”?
I don’t see how the conclusion follows from the premises. It looks like a non sequitur to me.
More “looseness”, I see. What constitutes “reasonable levels of aggression”, exactly?
You’re assuming or claiming that people with high time preference would always and necessarily make up some proportion of those in Hoppean defense-insurance business sector. No, actually you’re assuming or claiming that they would always and necessarly make up some proportion of the leadership in that sector. If this is simply an assumption you’re making from the outset, why do I or anyone else have to go along with it? Otherwise, can you prove this claim?
Endlessly seeking conquest? Where has there been an example of that in history? Off the top of my head, Alexander III of Macedon comes the closest, but even he stopped seeking conquest when his army revolted.
So far, I don’t see how you’ve made any logical argument there. Indeed, the notion that anything will necessarily happen is an argument from ignorance, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly already. With all due respect, perhaps you’re still looking for a persuasive argument to the contrary because you refuse to be persuaded at all.
In other words, you’re not sure and you can’t prove it. Why not just come out and say it?
Again, please explain just what exactly you mean by “having force”. You seem to be using this as a vague “weasel word” to avoid being pinned down in a logically rigorous manner.
I’m surprised you don’t see how you’re contradicting yourself. Your initial explanation of how a force monopolist would inevitably arise in Hoppean anarcho-capitalism involved literal elimination and subjugation of everyone else in a given territory. Now you’re backpedaling after being challenged on that, by saying that literal elimination and subjugation of everyone else in a given territory may not be economical. It would seem, then, that your initial explanation of how a force monopolist would inevitably arise in Hoppean anarcho-capitalism no longer holds.
There’s no means to prevent anything in the sense of guaranteeing that it will never, ever happen. If a majority of force (possibly even less) in a territory joins the cartel, their customers may cancel their subscriptions and subscribe instead to defense-insurance companies that are outside of the cartel. In fact, the existence of a cartel per se in no way prevents this. A cartel is not even a monopoly necessarily.
Your real question is what would or even could prevent systematic aggression (i.e. a state) from occurring in Hoppean anarcho-capitalism. You claim that one or more defense-insurance companies would inevitably turn to such systematic aggression after accumulating “overwhelming force”. I invite you to provide an explanation for how such a company or set of companies, after enjoying a presumably long and profitable history of peaceful business (after all, how else could they have accumulated such “overwhelming force”?), would suddenly choose to abandon such activity and embark on wanton conquest.
Indeed, it seems to me that you’re trying to shift the burden of proof to the rest of us. You started this thread by making a claim and demanding that others prove it wrong. Why should (let alone must) we do that when you’ve offered no positive proof for your claim?
So then who’s to say whether the IRS or the government in general actually and necessarily would use force against anyone? And who’s to say how much force would it actually and necessarily use? My point is that so much of what’s been going on ultimately depends upon people’s beliefs and perceptions. The idea, then, is to try to change those things.
So again, the idea is to reach out to “the masses” in the “battleground of ideas” before attempting any active resistance against the state. Essentially, and as others have pointed out, the idea is to “change people’s hearts and minds”. Only when “enough” people hold the state as illegitimate - which may be the vast majority of people, or only a “significant” minority - will it start to lose its legitimacy and, to borrow a term from the Communists, “wither away”.
How many? Can you pin this down any further?
+1
An unlimited number of chances would also require an unlimited amount of time. So the point is moot.
That’s my point. Hence your claim that the general probability for territorialist monopolists of force is “very likely” does not stand.
Simply seeking territorial monopolies of force is one thing. Being successful at it is quite another.
I understand your point and you are right. It is like the Is the glass half full or half empty? question.
Why would you want that argument? Yes, territorial monopolies of force will likely form as you suggest. However, they will just as likely fall as you have failed to suggest. Real life is a dynamic flux between statism and statelessness. Big deal??
I am comfortable with that. As an anarchist, I would much rather live among fellow anarchists who do not believe any such monopolies of force have divine authority. The odds of keeping would-be rising tyrants at bay would be great.
Contrast that with our current state of affairs: Virtually 99% of the population is so dreadfully stupid and irresponsible that they believe religiously that the Almighty Government represents a paragon of righteous authority. Keeping the monopolies of force in check is virtually impossible.
I can not speak for all anarchists or libertarians or Austrian economists. Personally, my identity as an anarchist is to promote anarchy with the Non-Aggression Principle as the starting point so as to lead more people to become such anarchists as well. I dream of a world – if not for myself, I hope for my children and grand-children – where the vast majority of people hold dear such a moral code. Choose your poison.
I’m posting from my phone so I can’t quote at all, but I had to say something about z1235’s post above. It is the best and briefest encapsulation of the solution to these kind of quandaries and the utility of mises.org and how to achieve a better future that I have ever seen. Well done z! This needs to be made into a video and sent to Ron Paul fans as a companion video to the one Graham Wright / trulib made about Ron Paul being a voluntarist. Heck, this even totally vindicates Mises’s quasi-minarchism, if you think about, since Mises basically says autodetermination should be extended down to the individual if possible. Now we have an agument that obviates even the need to convert minarchists to anarchists. It’s all about getting people to understand political economy. Now all we need to do is enlighten people using the fastest, clearest, most effective communication tools possible. Videos and Prezi presentations teaching economics visually, as some have already been doing, but more systematically in a zooming visual wiki format as can be done at prezi.com or perhaps elsewhere. Most of all, we need a clearer system of communication than mere words. (But more on that later.)
You may not be assaulted. But you are forced to pay the protection fee to the protection racket. Which monopolies of force exist that do not enslave us?
Notice how the police doesn’t g out of its way to collect additional taxes. The police largely follows 1) the law 2) public opinion when the law fails. If taxes are high, police will collect them. If your governor orders all citizens shot on sight the police wouldn’t do it. Hence, there are greater moral restraints on policemen. They generally follow orders.
Unless you count asset forfeiture.