Mansoor's Observation: Present Day Pakistan = An Example of an An Capp Society

There is not much of a state in Pakistan:

  1. Tax laws are ignored. No enforcement!

  2. Legal Tender Laws can be safely ignored but most businesses still transact in the government issued currency. Austrian prediction of other private currencies spontaneously showing up have NOT come true there.

  3. Other Laws are ignored / enforced (very little to non-existent protection of life and property). It is truly a rule by barrel of gun of the local warlord / thugs. There are lots of jobs for thugs.

  4. intervention of outside governments does NOT impact most people at all by far!

  5. You guys need to visit there and see how AnCapness works in practice.

  6. All that religious zealotry stuff you think is widespread it is NOT it is just fodder for international media. I have live there I know. And if you don’t trust me just go there or send a team of Austrian economists to look around.

  7. Then tell me what you think.

Mansoor

The reach of the government would still be there in big matters rather than small ones.

Pakistani blocking of foreign investment and foreign trade would still have an impact on the small man.

But isn’t capitalism still involving property registration and contract enforcement, whether the government or third-party vouchers does it? If Pakistan is not giving a proper property registration system to all those local people, how will banks lend money to people? They don’t have much proof. How do business contracts get enforced in rural Pakistan?

All anarchy and no capitalism is just a regression back to serfdom and collectivization, and a system where division of labour and specialization does not exist.

You need to do more research.

Whether the laws are set by Islamabad, or by some local warlord, is irrelevant and still constitutes government. Pakistan does not resemble an anarcho-capitalist society, and its warlordism did not spawn out of anarchy. It would be like claiming that Afghanistan was an anarchic society due to warlordism, when it was not. Historically, liberalism has come after warlordism: Nation Wrecking in Afghanistan.

U.S. aid, both fiscal and military, does impact the daily lives of the average Pakistani. U.S. aid has perpetuated the struggle between the central government and the peripheral local governments, which has created a level of regime uncertainty in Pakistan. Regime uncertainty is an obstacle to entrepreneurship. U.S. aid has propped up governments which otherwise may have never existed.

The bottom line is that Pakistan is not a good example of anarcho-capitalism.

Gersham’s Law. Bad money drives out good money. If the government issued fiat currency is valued over other forms of money then it is government issued fiat currency which will circulate the most. This is why multiple private currencies have not propped up in almost any country in the world, except in countries where their own currency has lost all value - well, in the case of Zimbabwe they used neighboring fiat currencies.

Exactly my point = Pakistan = An Cap Society

They have 180 million people. Most cannot even spell the word government. Government does have a minor role in Karachi and Lahore (probably only 10% of the population).

It is very An Capp outside Karachi and Lahore.

Mansoor

They have 180 million people. Most cannot even spell the word government. Government does have a minor role in Karachi and Lahore (probably only 10% of the population).

It is very An Capp outside Karachi and Lahore.

Also, it is not even warlords most places. Just Tribal Chiefs and/or simply thugs!

Mansoor

I don’ want to be rude, but please read everything I wrote. I will quote for you:

Whether the laws are set by Islamabad, or by some local warlord, is irrelevant and still constitutes government. Pakistan does not resemble an anarcho-capitalist society, and its warlordism did not spawn out of anarchy.

You need to tavel more and observe / experience the real world laboratories all over the globe.

Mansoor

It is not warlords. They are more like tribal chiefs. They are called waderas.

Mansoor

Oh come on I wouldn’t put pakistan as any example of an Ancap society that’s really stretching it. From Pakistan myself and I see what you’re trying to get at- but the chiefs still dictate their will onto others which is the antihesis of an ancap society. Pakistan’s entire history also has some of the most corrupt governments that have ever graced themselves onto the scene of states. Lol if you’ve been to Pakistani cities before then I’m sure you’ve had the experience of having to pay a bribe to the police there if they’ve stopped you for anything.

Some of the most violent people in Pakistan are the ones that are associated with any political party. Its more akin to joining a gang over here in the states.

Um, what’s the point of splitting hairs? My point still stands. Why don’t you actually address my post?

Address what? You use fancy / vague words like “liberalism” or “socialism” which mean nothing to an average pakistani. Give me a very specific question and I will try to answer the best I can.

Mansoor

I didn’t ask you any questions. I commented on your post, and none of my terms are vague. What you describe is not anarchic in any way. You have yet to address the fact that a government is a government whether it is centralized in Islamabad or it’s provided by a warlord, tribal chief or what have you. All you are doing is purposefully evading arguments.

If that’s what you plan to do, what was the point of even starting the thread?

I can just as easily make the argument that Zimbabawe is the perfect example of a Keynesian society.

Ok. Outside of karachi and lahore (90% of the 180 million folks). It is mostly tribal chief rule and yes they dictate their will in return for making you a part of their community / tribe. They try to protect your life and property but you must obey them. This is how all society’s started. Pretty much.

Is this what you want to go back to?

Mansoor

Ah yes, the definition of anarchy. [:S]

Don’t you see that what you described is exactly the opposite of what we’re talking about when we mention an Ancap society? Where someone dictates their will on you in return for being a part of their community(a citizen). The tribal chiefs are mini-governments. Your analogy is false. Essentially there is little distinction between Pakistani government and a tribal government other than the technology and money involved. An Ancap society is to get away from this type of society. To ask me if that’s what we want to go back to doesn’t make sense.

Well it’s no “ancap” society but yet, at the very least, a very loose association of very small states (tribes), run according to Hoppean monarchical principles. So, they should be very liberal and advanced.

Sorry, but its a reach that probably wouldn’t fit the data from a sociological perspective. Here’s what I mean. Do the locals have no say in who rules over a certain locality; elder or some warlord? Do the locals have the recognized authority to personal secession? If no on these two questions then there’s not an anarchy in Pakistan of any type.