How can anarchy sustain itself?

This is all possible, but is it likely? As well as looking at the economies of ‘block bundling’ goods together, also look at the diseconomies of it. Is there anything that you think could limit the size and/or number of industries that some mega-firm could dominate? What today stops all firms just merging into one?

No, I must disagree with this notion of the companies owning neighborhoods. They have customers in that neighbourhood, that is all, just like a lot of other firms. As long as individuals in the neighborhood are voluntarily paying the firm for services, and could stop paying at any time and create or join some competitor or just use self defense, then it is not a state, it is a firm… and it has customers, not owned subjects / citizens.

Hi Rumblyelk.

Welcome to the boards.

In my opinion, you are still stuck in a basic economic fallacy. A common fear of free markets by the uninformed is that eventually everything will be owned by one or wo big guys. Thats what your scenario assumes.

We need to discuss this in detail before we can throw around guesses as to what may or may not happen in anarchy.

The economic premise is that it is nearly impossible (in my opinion completely impossible) for a monoploy to exist and expand indefinitely without being propped up by a government. And believe me many have tried to do it. (Many discussions in Mises archives and in audio/video library) Unlike what people think, it was usually free market competition that broke them up, not government protection. Competition from two or more other big fish or millions of little fish. It does not matter which.

Who would take out the garbage? If the Overlord owns all the oil refineries and all the car manufacturers and all the power stations, who would work these, manage these, repair these? He would have to pay others somehow. He would have bought these from another owner- what happens to that owner? He voluntarily becomes a serf, or he uses his cash to start a new business?They would have independant knowledge and money to start competing in little areas that the big guy cannot compete with. Geographic limitations become less and less restrictive as it becomes possible for people to shop and work online. In future innovation will make it possible for people to buy all their needs including power and other utilities from multiple sources, some local, some international, some remotely in the cloud.

Do you agree so far or do we have to examine this point more before discussing anarchy.

It’s possible for firms to own entire areas and operate them as cities, like Disneyland, but this is expensive and rare. Where it is profitable to do so, they will do so, yet there is certainly no inherent market trend towards this, and bear in mind the only reason large firms form in the first place is to overcome the transaction costs of outsourcing many of their functions. The cost of this is calculational efficiency. Smaller firms are more agile, as well. The socialist view that the market must, of necessity, lead to large monopolies is based ulitmately on fiction.

Another point to raise would be that even if some firms did own cities, ownership of these firms is open for anyone to purchase, and they will face competition from other firms in every other line of production, including their own. Finding willing consumers will be the only way such a model would work. If people want to incur the risk, that is their choice. I fail to see why it will be the norm though, or lead to the collapse of an anarchist society back into statism. It is an utterly far-fetched scenario.

My view is that you can’t disentangle culture from a social order. In other words, there must be some kind of self-propagating culture attached to a “fully privatized” social order. In order for this to be possible, your social order must have some kind of boundary (not necessarily territorial or even geographical) by which people can be included or excluded on the basis of their conformance to the culture. This is essentially Hoppe’s view.

This thought leads to a couple realizations. First, there already exist flourishing, fully private social orders - the Amish, Gypsies, certain Jewish sects, and so on. On a more relaxed definition, I think even religious groups like the Mormons or even Scientologists can be considered fully private social orders. You will note that all of these organizations are mostly non-territorial, that they have some kind of “home base” or “headquarters”, that they have some kind of single leader even though he may far removed and may have no formal authority to enact his own ideas about any particular matter even in his own ambit, that they have strongly normed shared beliefs (dogmas) compliance with which is requisite to maintaining good standing, etc. The second realization is that - except for the overlapping of all the private benefits that accrue to private, informal friendships or formal membership in any particular organization (including governments, where we do not consider a mere resident or even a “citizen” to be a member) - there is a kind of “organizational tragedy of the commons” in the wider culture. And this must necessarily be so. The culture “out there” must always be un-maintained or, even worse, lorded over by vulture-like fiends seeking to lure and trap the unwary. So, unfiltered culture is shit - worse than shit, it is a coma-inducing toxin that renders you helpless to the predation of whoever it is that happens to be in the business of predating on uncultured incompetents. We could roughly approximate the State* as just such a predator.

To put it in very simple terms to convey the general idea, imagine that culture is nothing but teaching your children how to act. What is the benefit of doing this if they’re not going to take care of you in your old age? And why will they take care of you in your old age if they have no cultural belief (i.e. taught when they were young) that they should do so? So, a social order with a culture that inculcates the values of taking care of those within the organization and which transfers this culture from generation to generation is self-sustaining and manages to “internalize” the benefits that result from the production of the culture itself (education, arts, community, entertainments, match-making, etc. etc. etc.) The wider culture, of course, has no beneficiaries, thus, no one has any interest in preserving the positive within the wider culture, or eliminating the negative from the culture. So this is why we have Lady Gaga, Sacha Baron Cohen and Kim Kardashian. These people are the embodiment of shit culture. Listening to them, watching them and patronizing them cannot benefit you nor does it contribute to your willingness to belong to a self-sustaining social order of which they are also a part. If anything, it lowers your consciousness and makes you more vulnerable to all forms of predation at the hands of private opportunists and the State apparatus.

In general, when you see the death of folk arts (folk music, folk stories, folk festivals, folk wisdom, etc.), you are witnessing the death of a social order. The only way to prevent this, in my opinion, is to have some kind of “cultural guardian” class within the social order (let’s call them “the priests”) that conscientiously manages membership within the society (by excluding “heretics”, that is, those promulgating ideas that will sooner or later lead to the breakdown of the society) and filters the wider culture through the use of norms by which to guide the self-censorship of the members of the society.

Clayton -

*Including religion, military, business, academia and all the other cronies and parasites attached to the State apparatus…

Please elaborate more on your class system description and how the priests would be able to regulate members of society

Great post Clayton

It’s probably easier for me to answer specific questions as I am using the terms very loosely, almost metaphorically.

Clayton -

Who knows what I meant; I just feel that sustainability comes down to how well humans uphold morality (not just what is in their best interest - i.e. incentives and consequentialism). Either privatization enables enforcement of contracts/prisons or we would still need a government.