So…what would stop an.cap. from falling from a private state (what it is frequently called) into the typical statism that we know and [don’t] love today?
The lack of a compulsory monopoly on force.
Competition does.
Entropy would dictate that all systems break down eventually. When it does happen and it will, there will be no stopping the rise of new statism. Then it will be their turn to collapse, eventually.
The point is not to create an everlasting utopia, but to seek truth, apply it and exalt others to do likewise. If we are very lucky we’ll see a few centuries of liberty and become a beacon for future oppressed civilizations.
Hmm… this question certainly comes up a lot.
I think a more pertinent question is “why would the state reemerge at all?”. The state can only exist if sufficiently many people have goals that they believe can only be achieved through aggression. There are many such people today but this is mainly because they can not imagine law or wealth being produced without a state. Naturally it’s possible that there be a few committed egalitarians for example who believe, rightly, that they cannot achieve their goal without a state, but it’s rather inconceivable that they be able to convince enough people to return to a state when they are perfectly content without one.
Liberty under anarcho-capitalism is not some equilibrium that can only be maintained by incessant vigilance, as is true of (partial) liberty under a state; it is instead the norm by which society functions, and so can not be easily abolished.
[:@] Goddamn, I am so sick of hearing that analogy.
The fact that it relies entirely on voluntary funding. Nobody will put money into a system that promotes the typical statism that we know and don’t love.
I like that phrase.
But, what would stop the private state from raisng the arbitrary borders that we face in todays society to force people to remain inside of it so that it may leech off the peoples work (so not voluntary anymore), eventually breaking down into the full-blown statism that we fight against today?
What do you mean by arbitrary borders? borders between geographical locations? or barriers to entry in key industries? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
In any case, if somebody tried to create “arbitrary borders” in laissez-faire, they would not have the legal framework (or the firepower) to back it up.
You get more long term profit from servicing your customers than you do from enslaving them. Same reason people have voluntary relationships with their friends instead of locking them up in their basements to be used as their little play things. I am not afraid of the accountants union enslaving me.
Also, a free society becomes extremely difficult to enslave once everyone is able to arm themselves, and excercises that power.
Thanx, and unless anybody would like to add anything, that would be all.
Then you should come to expect it by now.
I’ll add something tomorrow..
A voluntary society would be constantly changing and adapting. There would be no entropic system to break down. Besides, that theory does not apply to abstract systems - only physical ones. If if it did, formal government would have disappeared millenia ago.
The formal governments of a millenia ago have vanished - they’ve been replaced by other systems, pretty much everywhere. Entropy may only apply to physical systems, but the last time I checked, I live in one.
Of course, purely rational thinking would hold that the long-term gains from peaceable commerce to be more worthwhile than the short-term gains of getting enough buddies to get the job done, going over the hill, and taking what one wants. Man, being a largely rational being, has rarely done the latter.
Right.
Given two relatively equal groups, say, 2000 people per group. One is a monarchy, based loosely on Merrie Olde Angland - the other, a clump of happy, peaceful, prosperous anarchist-capitalists. There’s some trade, and the MOA folks get a load of how prosperous the PACs are. Let’s say that the MOAs can only field an army of 500, while there are 1000 active militants in the PAC neighborhood. The army has field training, ranks, and a chain of command. The PACs don’t need such drivel.
Anyone want to bet on the PACs winning that war? Anyone with knowledge of military history? That’s how the Romans created an empire - by superior organization, not by superior manpower.
I wish it would work - I truly do. OTOH, having looked at the history of England’s empire, I’d expect an area containing nothing but PACs to be overrun and ruled by their neighbors in fairly short order.
I sincerely wish it were otherwise. OTOH, I’m in Minnesnowta, and it’s currently 2F - flockin’ cold out. I sincerely wish that were otherwise, too.
Danno, who depresses himself sometimes.
But how effective is such organzition and centralization against a group that is fundamentally decentralized? One that has no one point of weakness, no place to concentrate force for an economical victory?
I dunno - ask the aborigines of Australia, North America - anywhere where a decentralized group came into conflict with a centralized, organized society.
Competition isn’t always about sports or economics.
Danno - student of history, or historically, a student?
Every type of society is vulnerable to outside military threats. Anarcho-capitalism removes a significant level of that threat by not engaging in any war activities that piss others off. Is this enough of a disincentive to foreign invasion to offset the disorganised nature of its defence system? Who knows.
In my own head, which obviously requires less evidence than elsewhere, I tend to think the defence isn’t an issue. National defence reserve companies would probably be a profitable enterprise, given that national defence is likely to be an easy sell for getting funding as a charity – especially when the threat becomes visible.
The other thing is, you have to wonder how ‘easy’ it would actually be for another nation to take over an anarcho-capitalist society against the population’s wish. The most powerful army in the current world certainly struggles in that regard; Vietnam, certain parts of Iraq etc. I don’t see it being any easier when facing a comparatively richer population, armed with countless protection agencies… Especially when there’s no element of revenge (or claims of ‘just war’) behind the invaders.
True, but there was also a massive disparity in technology between the two, something that isn’t assumed in your original scenario. A better example from history would be medieval Ireland, where the British were fended off for hundreds of years.
The same anti statism inherent in society that opposses high taxes