If people cannot be trusted to settle matters peacefully, how is it any solution to create a monopoly power?
It seems to be working well enough. Splintering the world into tiny ancap communities takes for granted either an even distribution of natural resources, such that no war for them is required to establish control of them; and/or a pre-existing infrastucture for trade between them. And as I stated earlier in a post, pretending that human nature allows for an all-voluntary agreement of resource control and ownership is like playing with intellectual dolls, pure fantasy.
The state is the enforcement agency. That’s the whole point - it can go to war, and pass the costs off to its constituentso
The law enforcement agent is sworn to serve and to protect the interests of its employer. If two or more exist, then there is that much better chance that these interests will conflict and aggression will arise. And such conflict will be a real-world cost of doing business–of protecting ones interests.
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.
You’re stuck on the war thing, I see. I made a funny scenario to make a point. I don’t expect much war; only corruption and dirty tricks.
Who writes and interprets the laws?
I say the People vote. But I’m not a libertarian. What do you say?
Fine. What prevents us from having a monopoly in food production on the free market, though? Companies could collude and raise prices through the roof. They could buy up all the land and make us work 20 hours per day to get even a morsel of hard bread.
In fact, the car manufacturers could refuse to sell us cars if we don’t pay $100,000.
And you’d argue that we have no infrastructure for international trade?
No. I’m pointing out that that serves as the intellectual dollhouse for your pretend game–where there’s no scramble for control of arable lands, fresh water, mineable minerals, passable mountains, natural harbors, bridges, roads and airports. If all of this were just shareable or easily negotiated, we’d all be licking lollipops and singing Koombayah too.
A defense of natural resources requires a control of resources against other competing potential controllers, given the REALITY of human nature. This gives rise to a common defense of large resources by a modernizing military funded by a state apparatus, funded by revenues from a state system whose law makers are ideally elected. For my part, I wrote an amendment to a direct democracy constitution funding via user fees, rather than taxes.
How did you come to this conclusion? It’s actually the enforcement sector of governments that function under this promise, which leads to dangerous national outcomes like civilian genocide and oppression.
Private enforcement agencies, on the contrary, have their own interests, and are not at all sworn to protect under all conditions - the obligations are of mutual benefit (neither is sworn to the other’s wishes) and decided by contract.
So, your problem isn’t that people would have law enforcement agencies - it’s that people have different interests. Welcome to the real world. Now, do we want everyone lobbying to a big, coercive monopoly to solve the problems of conflicting interests, or do we want to settle them as peacefully as possible, through mutually beneficial trade?
I haven’t been following the posts that carefully. I’ll re-read them.
Would you say seperate, foreign nations engage in corruption and dirty tricks? Please don’t make me cite all the obviously blasphemous collusion that goes on.
“The people” as in.. Men? Because just a second ago you were afraid of men corrupting the law, as if law was not a creation of man himself.
I’m pointing out that that serves as the intellectual dollhouse for your pretend game–where there’s no scramble for control of arable lands, fresh water, mineable minerals, passable mountains, natural harbors, bridges, roads and airports
So having a state magically eliminates this scramble for natural resources? A monopoly on aggression makes scarcity go away?
And you never addressed the issue of why not to have a world government that someone brought up.
Fine. What prevents us from having a monopoly in food production on the free market, though? Companies could collude and raise prices through the roof. They could buy up all the land and make us work 20 hours per day to get even a morsel of hard bread
To some extent government prevents it–with their monopoly on force. We agree to a government system constrained by laws meant to protect all. And if a car manufacturer charges too much, they don’t sell any. We only ought to allow a monopoly on force–and only to the agency sworn to uphold law for ALL.
Private enforcement agencies, on the contrary, have their own interests, and are not at all sworn to protect under all conditions
This helps make my point; though I don’t buy it. If they only agree to protect if no danger is involved, for instance, then they won’t get many contracts. They would have to be better than what we have now to get business.
do we want everyone lobbying to a big, coercive monopoly to solve the problems of conflicting interests, or do we want to settle them as peacefully as possible, through mutually beneficial trade?
It’s not a question of what we want; it’s a question of what we HAVE. People don’t settle things peacefully, so there has to be a single, universal system of justice–one funded by all parties and partial to none.
“The people” as in.. Men? Because just a second ago you were afraid of men corrupting the law, as if law was not a creation of man himself.
I don’t see a better system than democracy for creating law, even though mankind is highly imperfect. The alternative is lawless vulnerability or lollipops and dollhouses.
RRRRReligious thinking, nothing else. Belief, that force magically can be “suspended” for doing only in a good way (how? Pure faith…). That totally misses the point of human nature.
So having a state magically eliminates this scramble for natural resources? A monopoly on aggression makes scarcity go away?
Having a state all but guarantees control of natural resources; and a monopoly on force all but guarantees a non-chaotic distribution of those resources, ideally through the free market.
And you never addressed the issue of why not to have a world government that someone brought up?
If a world government formed naturally by agreement between previously-autonomous ancap communities, in recognition of the need to more efficiently utilize dwindling natural resources, would that be wrong?
RRRRReligious thinking, nothing else. Belief, that force magically can be “suspended” for doing only in a good way (how? Pure faith…). That totally misses the point of human nature.
Realistic thinking. The fantasy is that force disappears when everybody magically agrees to agree on everything. This is human nature? RRRRight.Anysystem is endangered by human nature. But those who think the solution is no system, are only turning their backs completely on human nature. On reality.
Also, when states “own” the natural resources, we still fight wars. How’s that?
We fight to protect what we have from other groups/states and to get what they already have. That’s my point. The world is not a safe place without modernized miltaries and big states. When human nature is either less aggressive, or humans no longer need the limited resources of the Earth, then it’ll be safe to do without coercive government.