Wheylous
… which was achieved in the first place because people believe in non-aggression.
This may be where I don’t see the point of all of you even arguing over obscure libertarian doctrine. I’m proposing a solution to the way human nature IS; not what it might be if people were all wonderful. Your hypotheticals ought to be based upon reality; otherwise your playing with intellectual dolls.
Wheylous
You’re forgetting: WAR IS REALLY UNPROFITABLE AND UNPOPULAR
Tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan.
So there was no hope for Nazi Germany?
I’m proposing a solution to the way human nature IS
As are we. As are we.
But now that you mention it, it’s funny, cuz the “human nature” of the rising generation tends to lean socialist more and more.
Tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan.
You’ll have to explain what you mean.
Tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan
Wheylous
You’ll have to explain what you mean.
I mean that I doubt that those countries believe that Americans don’t like war or care that it cost money, when control and defense of assets are at stake.
You are trying to use an example of a state peforming poor economic calculation to disprove free market calculation?
War is unprofitable and unpopular when individuals have to bear the costs of their own actions. However, states are a medium through which individuals and institutions can spread the costs of war, and thus profit from it.
Wheylous
You are trying to use an example of a state peforming poor economic calculation to disprove free market calculation?
I’m saying that people come to aggression over private property disputes constantly, whether as individuals or as a state; that force is necessary in the defense of assets; and that the costs of defending assets are only too great when they exceed the costs of the assets themselves. It’s a flip side of doing “business.” And it’s just as necessary a calculation in an ancap society as any other.
NonAntiAnarchist
War is unprofitable and unpopular when individuals have to bear the costs of their own actions. However, states are a medium through which individuals and institutions can spread the costs of war, and thus profit from it
I can see that I never should have used the funny example in the OP. My point was to predict that private police forces would come into conflict with one another–that security forces would act as lapdogs for their employers; and that conflicts would arise between private companies’ law enforcement personnel and community police personnel–not to mention opportunities for collusion and corruption, since all cops are literally for sale to the highest bidder.
Why aren’t cops currently joining gangs? It appears that if people are indeed profit-maximizing in your AnCap scenario, then they should be in all scenarios. If a private organization offers them more money, they should join them. By this logic, the government would currently would have no police force because it can’t shell out the big bucks.
Wheylous
Why aren’t cops currently joining gangs? It appears that if people are indeed profit-maximizing in your AnCap scenario, then they should be in all scenarios. If a private organization offers them more money, they should join them. By this logic, the government would currently would have no police force because it can’t shell out the big bucks.
The enforcement of law is now a state function, illegal absent state certification. And they get paid by the state, except where they earn money off-duty as security. They are also supervised by other state agencies; and if they tried to join money-making gangs of law enforcers, they would have to have a jurisdiction and a certification to do so.
This is basically analogous to war between states. The difference is, states are able to spread the costs of their actions among an oppressed constituency, while private firms must bear the costs of their own actions internally. Now you tell me which is more likely to go to war.
And as for employees of a private defense firm being biased in favor of their employer, why does the same logic not lead us to the conclusion that state employees will tend to be baised towards the state? Well, it does, and we can see this manifesting itself in present day as police have ever diminishing regard for the “citizens” whom they’re supposed to “protect”. The thing is, this becomes a much larger problem when the defense agency has a violent monopoly, barely any public accountability, and a centralization of the recources in society.
Daryl - if the defense company is evil, then no one would support it financially…
NonAntiAnarchist
This is basically analogous to war between states. The difference is, states are able to spread the costs of their actions among an oppressed constituency, while private firms must bear the costs of their own actions internally. Now you tell me which is more likely to go to war?
If two states were paying through taxes the same enforcement agency, they would be less likey to go to war. The more different entities there are, empowered to protect smaller private interests, the more likely conflict and “war” will result. That private firms bear the costs of their actions will be news to Wall Street.
And as for employees of a private defense firm being biased in favor of their employer, why does the same logic not lead us to the conclusion that state employees will tend to be baised towards the state? Well, it does, and we can see this manifesting itself in present day as police have ever diminishing regard for the “citizens” whom they’re supposed to “protect”. The thing is, this becomes a much larger problem when the defense agency has a violent monopoly, barely any public accountability, and a centralization of the recources in society.
When state employees are biased in favor of their employee, they are in favor of the law. The alternative is to be biased in favor of men. We are a nation of laws, not men. The abuses of private police would be worsened by their own profit motives–legallzed guns for hire. This monopoly of force, or authority to use force,is one of two that are necessary for law and order, the other being military.
And I don’t understand why. If court X screws someone over you apeal to court Y, not firebomb court X or get court Y to issue a warrant for the arrest of the CEO of court X.
Wheylous
Daryl - if the defense company is evil, then no one would support it financially…
If that evil defense company is all they have, what choice do they have? Just because a company is evil does not mean they can’t keep potential competitors out of the way, particularly since they have such power. Granting law enforcement to one private company or to many private companies is a choice between a private monopoly of private power or an oligarchy of private power–neither as accountable as a public, hierarchical, governmental monopoly of power.
It never ceases to amaze me that this is taken as a serious critique of ancapism. What is your solution to the problem of people not getting along? Giving one group a monopoly on coercion? Seriously?
If people cannot be trusted to settle matters peacefully, how is it any solution to create a monopoly power?
Evilsceptic
And I don’t understand why. If court X screws someone over you apeal to court Y, not firebomb court X or get court Y to issue a warrant for the arrest of the CEO of court X.
You aren’t living up to your good name, Sir. Are you contending that companies don’t already use every legal trick in the book to get an edge on the competition–and then some? If there is no prohibition against private law enforcers executing searches and seizures, for example, is it inconceivable that private police will stretch the bounds of the law in order to advance the ends of their employers?
The state is the enforcement agency. That’s the whole point - it can go to war, and pass the costs off to its constituents.
This is a non sequitor. You’re once again ignoring the fact that when institutions are responsible for their costs, they tend to make better decisions - and war is a very high cost.
And if we take your point to it’s logical conclusion, a one world government would somehow reduce conflict. Unfortunately, the average individual no longer realizes how freakin’ dangerous that would be, so this reductio isn’t as damning.
Who writes and interprets the laws?
How did they pass their costs onto others? By what means?