Wheylous
And yet they’re doing better than they were with a state, correct?
You’d have to ask each one of them. But it sure doesn’t look like it. Their neighbors won’t leave them alone.
Forget the global statelessness for a moment. This thread is going in circles because you keep forgetting/ignoring answers to previous questions.
First of all, what exactly do you mean by human nature when you use it as a yardstick, which apparently free societies do not measure up to. Secondly, if human nature is so vicious then how is it better for there to be a territorial monopoly whose existence depends on coerced taxation? Wouldn’t the vicious humans use this institution for the greater bad? A forced monopoly provides no incentive to do anything other than expand the capability of force with which to preserve the monopoly.
It seems like you’re assuming that AnCaps think that somehow a free society calls for a different ‘human nature’. This is not necessary. AnCap society calls only for the recognition of property rights, which are mostly respected today. Instead of monopolized defense services, wherein the performance of the service is irrelevant to the income, there should be free competition of defense services, wherein the income depends on customer satisfaction.
If a customer disliked the services of a particular agency, he would be free to seek the services of another. Such is not the case today with monopolized defense. If an agency were to make aggressive war on another agency, a few things would happen: the reputation of the aggressor is called into question( because no one wants to deal with someone that might aggress against them), the defending agency might hire the services of other agencies in order to end the conflict as quickly as possible, the aggressor must convince his employees that the conflict is worth dying for without the aid of nationalistic propaganda (after all the employee may quit whenever), and most importantly the aggressor must shoulder the costs of war from his own pocket. War is expensive. This might well entail raising the rates on customers, which would then want to unsubscribe from that agency. Not only because of the high rates but because the trustworthiness of the agency is called into question.
Say an agency tried to extort its customers. Those people could subscribe to services of other defense agencies to defend themselves. Customers would see that the agency was crooked and unsubscribe, not willing to waste their money on a company that may not honor its contract. That agency, now having lost reputation, faces losing income and employees while trying to confront one or more agencies with steady incomes. After all, those defending agencies still have their reputation because they have not aggressed.
War is made possible only by taxation. What if the state voluntarized taxation, meaning that contributing was optional? Would they be able to fund their foreign wars when unwilling people don’t contribute? Of course not, people would retract their money from counter-productive bombs and tanks assembly lines into industries of their choosing, ones that increase their standard of living, not decrease others’ standards. In fact it already can’t and is in debt over its head.
Please, before you make another post lay out what you mean by human nature and cut out the obnoxious mud-slinging ‘intellectual doll’ shtick, wherein you attempt to discredit arguments on the premises you present instead of the ones they do.
Jargon
This thread is going in circles because you keep forgetting/ignoring answers to previous questions.
I had to include your opening observation, because I don’t feel that I’ve ignored anyone, or that this thread has been going in circles–except to the extent that I’ve been anchored in my opinion of human nature and challenged from all sides by assertions based upon a more idealistic assumption of the tendencies of mankind than my own (Clayton excepted.)
First of all, what exactly do you mean by human nature when you use it as a yardstick, which apparently free societies do not measure up to.
As to what exactly I mean by human nature: Technically-speaking, I mean the average distribution of good and bad traits within a given, significant sampling of the human population. And as to what I believe that nature to be, it depends upon the conditions of life. Bad traits come out in bad times, even in good people. And a scramble for the securing of natural resources–and with them, the securing of survival itself–will bring out the very worst traits in human nature. To take as a given that the settling of the Earth and its resource control has already occurred, the way paved for an all-voluntary society, is to leapfrog the biggest intellectual obstacle to the establishment of an ancap society: not the specific rules(Rothbard vs Kinsella) after it already exists; but the means by which it might be formed in the first place, given where real human nature has led us to today.
Furthermore–stay with me here–human DNA is such that in a given family unit, two perfectly lovely parents will often have two perfectly lovely children and one perfect SOB of a child. Why is this relevant? The family is a DNA microcosm of society: no matter how lovely the society and its rules, or how peaceable the leaders under their voluntary control of resources, born into their midst will be an equal number of kiddoes whose hearts’ delight is not in following an orderly, voluntary, peaceable system–whose delight stems from bringing chaos and misery to such a system and its participants–and hoarding everything for themselves. Where we seem most to differ is both in the distribution of these negative traits among humans and within each one of them–all waiting to be brought out by adverse circumstances.
Secondly, if human nature is so vicious then how is it better for there to be a territorial monopoly whose existence depends on coerced taxation? Wouldn’t the vicious humans use this institution for the greater bad? A forced monopoly provides no incentive to do anything other than expand the capability of force with which to preserve the monopoly.
Because human nature is so “vicious (not my term),” a territorial monopoly, dependent upon coerced taxation, has been necessary throughout all of human history, in order to secure natural resources and survival itself. Counterexamples would only cement the point, as they would either be lost civilizations–to collective conquerors–or prohibitively-isolated ones. And because we find ourselves left with this state-resource-control legacy and DNA legacy, a discussion of the niceties of an ancap society is a complete avoidance of the realities of human affairs, vis a vis our human nature.
Do bad humans use the monopoly in bad ways? Of course. Would a society where bad people agree not to ever do bad things anymore–and not to combine forces to take good peoples’ good things–be preferable? Of course. But a monopoly on law-enforcement and on military, funded through coercive taxation, is understandable, because it was necessary to secure natural resources critical to survival against competitors for such resources, and has been critical for maintaining control of said resources ever since. A benefit of this coercive state monopoly is the freedom it provides most citizens to be productive in specialized areas, leaving the police/military, ie. specialists, to provide for their protection. In such circumstances–far removed from any bitter scramble for survival itself–the better aspects of human nature–still flawed–become more visible. It’s a trade-off; a balance of the loss of individual autonomy with the gain of community security. And those who benefit from this protection and these easier circumstances ought not be allowed to free-ride off the sacrifices of the rest. ( They could leave the protections of the state–establish an ancap community in Antarctica, or the North Pole, where an absence of natural resources and relative isolation will all but guarantee safety from competing groups of humans, interested in their own survival.)
Instead of monopolized defense services, wherein the performance of the service is irrelevant to the income, there should be free competition of defense services, wherein the income depends on customer satisfaction.
“Monopolized defense services” are, in the real world, well-funded, well-armed, fully-staffed defense machines. They win wars for resource control. Please don’t waste your time trying to convince me that small, competing free-market military forces would be sufficient against huge modern, collective ones–especially given that such free-market fighters can always get a different job, should they tire of rolling out of bed at roll call and risking their lives for a salary.
As for competing private law enforcement, I have heard no plausible explanation for how a community would not be forced to use the same police “firm.” (Of course, all of this leapfrogs the further issue of what laws are to be enforced, who writes these laws, and how such laws are passed.) If neighbor A kills neighbor B and the police show up to arrest A, can A fire his agency on the spot, thereby avoiding arrest? What if B was paying a different police service for protection, and it happened on A’s property–on A’s private “jurisdiction”? Anyone who doesn’t come at this scenario predetermined to justify an ancap society will recognize the inherent contradiction and obvious conflict that will arise if the law enforcement does not serve all of the People, partial to none–paid by all who are subject to the laws.
Incidentally, under my direct democracy Constitution, a system of “coerced contribution” is replaced by one nearer the private sector model–a pay-per-use system of revenue collection:
Usage fees levied upon foreign governments for involvement of United States military personnel, equipment or weaponry in operations outside the territory of the United States, at the request of said governments, which would otherwise be the responsibility of any sovereign nation to itself;
Misusage fees levied upon persons whose activities, whether intentional or negligent, damage public property;
Misusage fees levied upon persons whose activities damage the private property of another person, or impede its exclusive use by barring lawful access to it, or operation of it; physically altering it or its value; or otherwise converting or making improbable its peaceable, lawful, exclusive enjoyment; thereby necessitating the intervention of law enforcement or courts of law;
Misusage fees levied upon persons who assume unnecessary risks or file frivolous complaints that require emergency public services or courts of law; (There are further provision for collection of revenue; but these are the most relevant.)
cut out the obnoxious mud-slinging ‘intellectual doll’ shtick, wherein you attempt to discredit arguments on the premises you present instead of the ones they do
I used the “intellectual dolls” comment as a descriptive metaphor, a fuller characterization of the folly of arguing over archane libertarian theory while ignoring the realities of the modern world. Had I named any person in particular and/or accused someone of actually playing with dolls, I would have been taking the metaphor too far. But if you yourself took it personally and was hurt by it, I sincerely apologize for that. I was trying to make a distinct point.
You’ve certainly been ignoring me.
Regardless, I’m still going to respond to you. With that in mind…
In other words, you’re refusing to actually answer Jargon’s question. I imagine he’d still be at a loss to understand what you mean by “human nature” in any meaningful way. So can you try actually answering the question, or can you admit that you either can’t or won’t?
You really, honestly believe that fully half of all people on Earth at any given time are psychopaths? That flies in the face of all medical evidence to the contrary. Please do provide whatever support you think you have for this assertion. I, for one, can’t wait to see it.
Autolykos
You’ve certainly been ignoring me.
I read every post that you addressed to me, often several times. And I would like to debate everyone, including you. But as I stated before, I will not respond to you, unless you refute what I have asserted, assert something of your own, or pose a thoughtful, sincere question about an assertion of mine. If I sense that you are trying to “win” the argument by twisting my words into the tightest possible knot, rather than enlightening me as to your greater understanding of an issue, or by barbing me with your sharper sarcasm, then I won’t respond.
Yet again, you try to wiggle your way out of the burden of proof. Fortunately, I and (I’m sure) others see through this. But go ahead, be intellectually dishonest all you want. I will continue to call you out on it.
Oh and by the way, not responding to me is the same as ignoring me.
+1
But I think you’re missing the larger point that the fact that government is corruptible means that it’s not above and apart from human nature. The same tool of overwhelming force which was supposed to exist in order to stop “the bad guys” itself becomes the ultimate weapon in the hands of the bad guys.
If you start the analysis of society from a different point, I think you will get better clarity. If you start with government and the human need for government, you can’t ever get to any clear conclusions beyond things like “government is inevitable and so we have to just try to make the best of it”. The correct point to start the analysis of the social order is with the individual and when you start here, I think you get a better picture of exactly what government is.
Basically, we can divide human effort into two broad categories: productive and parasitic. Productive activities are those which arise solely as the result of unhampered, individual choice. Parasitic activities are those which allow one individual to live off the productive efforts of others not as the result of the unhampered, individual choice of the producers. Which sort of activitiy is governance? It’s not productive, it’s parasitic. To be sure, it’s far from being the only sort of parasitic activity that humans engage in. But the difference between governance and any other kind of parasitic activity you might care to mention is that every other sort of parasitism is regulated by counter-acting forces so that, if it cannot be eliminated altogether, it is at least minimized.
In the case of government, however, there is a long history of tortured moral and natural justifications for its existence and these ideological concepts are precisely the problem. They shield the government from the natural forces of human activity which would minimize governmental parasitism… like those forces by which we minimize purse-theivery, burglary, and so on. To keep burglars out, we install locks on our doors, to keep our purses from being stolen, we avoid certain areas of town and hold our purse in a firm clutch that cannot be casually broken, and so on.
But prevailing moral sentiments deeply stigmatize the kinds of behaviors which have been traditionally used to shield oneself from government parasitism. Tax evasion today is considered deeply immoral, worse than fraud, but an active culture of tax evasion is a one of the primary checks on the power of government. Identifying and challenging these flawed moral ideas is one of the chief tasks facing anyone who is serious about bringing an end to the current course of political insanity which has seized our culture.
Clayton -
Clayton
But I think you’re missing the larger point that the fact that government is corruptible means that it’s not above and apart from human nature.
Of course it isn’t. I realize that, human nature being about the same everywhere, the difference between those in government and those forced to pay for its protection is only a difference in power, not character. It might even be argued that anyone attracted to the job of exercising power over others through government is of a more questionable character than those who simply wish to carry on with their productive private lives.
But that doesn’t refute the reality that in this world of limited resources and expanding populations there has been a real need for government, for law enforcement and military protection. Wars for territory have been the rule, not the exception. That within these collectives there are always many people seeking to exercise power over others, or to act as parasites upon them, goes without saying. These people would not disappear without government: They formed it in the first place.
So, with so many wanting so much from others, what is the real alternative?
The same tool of overwhelming force which was supposed to exist in order to stop “the bad guys” itself becomes the ultimate weapon in the hands of the bad guys
In many cases this has already proven true, the Middle East in particular. A nation of laws, not men is the best real-world solution. It works well enough here, in spite of the corruption and our growing debt, to keep the most aggressive criminals in jail and to keep us from a constant defense of our territory, ala Somalia.
But the difference between governance and any other kind of parasitic activity you might care to mention is that every other sort of parasitism is regulated by counter-acting forces so that, if it cannot be eliminated altogether, it is at least minimized
Government provides protection of person and property against aggression in exchange for what it takes in taxation. Tit for tat. And if it provided no protection of law and borders, then those precursors to its existence would collapse; and it would no longer receive revenues. The counteracting forces may be seen in the separation of powers, the common need for a common defense, and the counteracting ambitions of those in and out of government–the power hungry and the parasitic, alike.
To keep burglars out, we install locks on our doors, to keep our purses from being stolen, we avoid certain areas of town and hold our purse in a firm clutch that cannot be casually broken, and so on
And well over two centuries ago, in order to stop taxation without representation, we booted the British out. But after struggling under the Articles of Confederation to provide for an acceptable defense against foreign threats, and to facilitate easy trade and travel between different territories/States, the people (admittedly not all) voted voluntarily to create a stronger document and a larger central government. Why argue with me now about this real-world reflection of human nature? What we see today is what human nature has dictated that we see today. If humans were inherently more noble and independent, more respectful of one another’s property and person, we wouldn’t be arguing in the U.S. today, but between separate ancap communities already.
I don’t see that such a tangible alternative currently exists–not so long as so many are willing to forego total self-autonomy in favor of the comfortable protection of the state, even those who are neither power-hungry or parasitic. As for tax evasion, I have no desire to receive the benefits of law and order, and relative safety from other nations, and thumb my nose at the government providing it–in spite of the fact that I was born into this arrangement. On balance it’s worth the money. And I don’t pay much, so I’m probably ripping them off anyway.
There has been a need for governance, not for government. There’s a difference.
Between states, yes.
The monopoly on force that is the state is what gives them a mechanism to take the reins of power over an entire territory.
They formed it because the tribal superstitions of the populace allowed them to. If everyone understood economics, there would be no governments.
You’re confusing the mid-level bureaucrat or pro tempore politician with the permanent power interests: royal families (yes, they still exist!), Old World nobility and what I call the crypto-aristocracy, the new (since the late 19th century or so) class of invisible aristocrats that orbit corporate boards, lobbies and high society generally. I won’t go into it here but I distinguish between two types of power… deputized and un-deputized power. It is the latter that I have in mind when I speak of the parasitic class. The Postal Service worker is not especially more parasitical than any other worker because his position would exist whether or not he personally filled it. But those at the pinnacles of power, pulling the strings and wielding un-deputized power are certainly parasitical and qualitatively different from the rest of us. They are criminals of the highest magnitude.
Hold on, this is why the analysis should begin with the individual and not with the complex concept of “government” which seems to mean something different to each person you ask. The demand is not for law enforcement or even military protection. The demand is for specific goods, such as security, dispute-resolution, legal representation, investigative services, etc.
Standing armies in peace time have always been considered a nuisance until recently. People don’t want armies, they just want territorial/border defense so that their stuff doesn’t get plundered or destroyed by foreign invaders. And border defense is really just an extension of property ownership so it’s clear that the form of collectivized “defense” we have today is not a reflection of the demands of the public-at-large but of the special interests that comprise the employer of the military: the government.
But let’s be careful not to generalize moral responsibility. We don’t blame “Italians” for the Italian mafia, we blame the specific heads of the mafia families who ran the show, and whichever of their underlings who were henchmen (we don’t blame dupes and sometimes we even exempt from blame those who have been the victims of blackmail or extortion). “Follow the money”… cui bono? The beneficiaries of wars (the royalty, aristocracy, in short, the Elites) are those who are mostly likely to have been the cause of those wars. The willingness of the public to expend its energies and lives to support the aggressive wars of its political leaders is a separate subject (popular manias).
That’s what they teach in civics class. Here’s what Hans Hoppe has eloquently said about it:
The state operates in a legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed, what is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed, what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the “customer” of such “service” must pay. Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you – but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers.
I don’t think “separation of powers” is a counteracting force. The government acts largely in concert. Its organs stand in competition with one another for the tax revenues which the government manages to secure for itself but all organs of government stand in union on the expansion of tax revenues to the greatest extent possible. Why fight the budget committee for another 10% to your department if you can simply ask the revenuer to haul in another 10% of taxes across the board?
The only really counteracting force is economic or social breakdown. Even revolt is not really a counteracting force against governance since revolts are invariably helmed by the next generation of governing opportunists and when revolts succeed, they simply result in a regime change, not a removal of government and government abuse. Economic and social breakdown is nearly just physical exhaustion. It’s when you have too many slave owners and not enough slaves. Too many tax-recipients and not enough taxpayers. It’s just arithmetic.
Private property is not incompatible with mutualist security arrangements. The problem is not that some people want to offload their autonomy onto others. The problem is that we have a moral crisis regarding the legitimacy of private-property and the illegitimacy of organized aggression against private property.
Speak for yourself.
Clayton -
Clayton
But those at the pinnacles of power, pulling the strings and wielding un-deputized power are certainly parasitical and qualitatively different from the rest of us. They are criminals of the highest magnitude.
I would agree that the Federal Reserve System is a bizarre institution for regulating the value and the supply of money. Nor would I dismiss out of hand the notion that there are Old World families and New World dynasties whose wealth and, by extension, some considerable power is maintained over the fate of the rest of humanity via connections therein that we know little of. If they are in fact exacerbating our national financial problems out of greed and ambition, then they are a higher magnitude of human turd. But your solution is to leave them to their wealth and dissolve whatever protection we do enjoy–from decent men and women, soldiers and cops–most professionals, who likely wouldn’t fire upon us if ordered to do so, any more than they did the Egyptian people. Your solution, then, is a do-over / free-for-all for the rest of us?
And border defense is really just an extension of property ownership so it’s clear that the form of collectivized “defense” we have today is not a reflection of the demands of the public-at-large
Property ownership is predicated upon border defense–upon the securing of nearby natural resources against potential competition that makes propery ownership a good investment. And private ownership is one of the most ardent demands of the public-at-large–at least where a collectively-inclined, colonizing people have obliterated the customs and mutual respectfulness of an indigenous people.
You seem to want to reverse the historical order of things and return to the indigenous, “common-law” life of unconquered, naturally-free people. And if you present me with the button that, if pressed, will not only reset all of humanity to that stage, but also wipe away the abiding wealth and power of the elites you posit to be in control, then I will surely press that button.
But while we’re waiting for that device to be shipped third-class my way, please explain to me how human nature will not once again lead to a scramble for control of resources, where some must win and others lose, where some grow rich and powerful and others get jobs and pay taxes. Unless this button changes human nature itself, I don’t see much hope for a peaceful, equitable system to either spontaneously develop among peoples newly-concerned for their very survival, or to be regenerated by virtue of a new common law, taught by those who’ve benefited from the internet-enlightenment of the People. That’s too much us (good folks) vs.them (evil elite)–as though only the elite would ever be the elite; and no lesser flunkies among us would rise to conquer and to replace them in the role of our puppetmasters. I think you want back into Eden.
There exists no contract between the state and its citizens
I’ve already put forth my defense of the Social Contract in our previous exchange; so I won’t “tax” your patience by repeating it here.
all organs of government stand in union on the expansion of tax revenues to the greatest extent possible
So does a frightening majority of the People, those who receive those revenues in the form of unearned benefits–whom I would call parasites. The elite don’t force them to be so unprincipled; it’s human nature.
The only really counteracting force is economic or social breakdown. Even revolt is not really a counteracting force against governance since revolts are invariably helmed by the next generation of governing opportunists and when revolts succeed, they simply result in a regime change, not a removal of government and government abuse
Very true, about the regime change. I obviously prefer to try appealing to the self-determination/anti-Congress sentiments of the People; rather than awaiting their collapse. But even I hold no illusions that a majority of people will choose to chart their own course via direct democracy. I believe we probably are headed for a collapse of the system. I just wanted to say to Americans, “Uh, hey, this way of doing things would still ensure our protection of borders and laws, while establishing a much more moral and financially-sound system of self-governance. Any takers?”
And so here I am. (Always speaking solely for myself, incidentally.)
Your defense fails. Your apparent refusal to come to terms with this indicates that you’re rather closed-minded about the whole thing. That doesn’t help your intellectual case one bit.
AJ
There has been a need for governance, not for government. There’s a difference.
Sorry, slow reader. Of course, I didn’t have to read past the introduction to find his concession that a collective military defense may well be necessary. And the past tense that you use in this quote mirrors the long-since-past examples he presents as societies that were operating under common law and custom, but that, one by one, fell victim to a modernizing, standardizing, specializing and collectivizing tendency of other humans, both within those societies, and outside of them. Such is human nature in the real world, and its real-world consequences. Try this: http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/history/36804.htm
Between states, yes.
I can’t prove it; but I’ll bet there were wars before taxes.
The monopoly on force that is the state is what gives them a mechanism to take the reins of power over an entire territority
Agreed. And their security-hungry human nature is what drives them to entertain the notion–that, and the rational desire to ensure survival–neither of which are going anywhere; though the internet is a good first baby step toward a marginal enlightenment for those willing to explore it.
They formed it because the tribal superstitions of the populace allowed them to. If everyone understood economics, there would be no governments.
Teach then, and they shall follow…maybe.
Not at all. Building Utopias in the air is the most futile waste of time imaginable. Human nature, with all its quirks and all its susceptibility to ideological distortions, is what it is. This very fact is the foundation of a sounder social science than what prevails in the mainstream today… what Ludwig von Mises called praxeology. We can deduce facts about human society from certain initial assumptions about human nature that are clearly irrefutable.
Let me quote Hans Hoppe on the relevance of the issue of the violence or general deficiency of human nature. Hoppe terms the idea that "we need government because people are bad "(broadly speaking) the Hobbesian myth and he identifies it as the one of the most pervasive and consequential myths in the modern world:
In commenting on this argument, there is little use in quarreling over whether man is as bad and wolf-like as Hobbes supposes, except to note that Hobbes’s thesis obviously cannot mean that man is driven only and exclusively by aggressive instincts. If this were the case, mankind would have died out long ago. The fact that he did not demonstrates that man also possesses reason and is capable of constraining his natural impulses. The quarrel is only with the Hobbesian solution. Given man’s nature as a rational animal, is the proposed solution to the problem of insecurity an improvement? Can the institution of a state reduce aggressive behavior and promote peaceful cooperation, and thus provide for better private security and protection? The difficulties with Hobbes’s argument are obvious. For one, regardless of how bad men are, S —whether king, dictator, or elected president— is still one of them. Man’s nature is not transformed upon becoming S. Yet how can there be better protection for A and B, if S must tax them in order to provide it? Is there not a contradiction within the very construction of S as an expropriating property protector? In fact, is this not exactly what is also—and more appropriately—referred to as a protection racket? To be sure, S will make peace between A and B but only so that he himself in turn can rob both of them more profitably. Surely S is better protected, but the more he is protected, the less A and B are protected from attacks by S. Collective security, it would seem, is not better than private security. Rather, it is the private security of the state, S, achieved through the expropriation, i.e., the economic disarmament, of its subjects. Further, statists from Thomas Hobbes to James Buchanan have argued that a protective state S would come about as the result of some sort of “constitutional” contract. Yet, who in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s protector to determine unilaterally—and irrevocably—the sum that the protected must pay for his protection; and the fact is, no one ever has!
That’s just an excerpt… Hoppe’s style of writing is ultra-concise, clear and laser-focused, so you can’t do better than reading him directly … asking me to repeat his arguments here will only detract from them.
Clayton -
Firstly, common law is not a particularly difficult system to develop without coercion. The idea is to spread knowledge of the non-aggression principle. State law nowadays is based loosely off of non-aggression but also is saturated with stuff like drug laws, IP, zoning, etc. The most agreeable form of law is that which punishes the person who aggresses onto the body or property of another person. Every decent person knows this and it would not be difficult for a community and a group of independent law firms to establish a code. But anyways, before entering an AnCap society, liberty would be generally understood by enough people for the society to come into being. The law code wouldn’t be an issue.
So what happens if suddenly the state dissolves and those royal families are unchanged? What power do they have without the state which they have invested so much in? The aggressive body of power known as the state which they used for their benefit, forming corporate dominance, printing money, waging wars, and taxing, would be gone. Monopolizing industry is impossible without state benefits. The worst they can do without repercussion, is try to buy lots of businesses. Naturally, if a royal family tried to start buying up businesses, business-owners would raise the prices of their businesses in accordance to the frequency of the purchases, making it impossible for that family to buy everything up. No one will ever have enough money to buy every property, because every purchase bids up the price.
What is power? Is it money? Or is it the ability to force people to do things? What would the rich families do without the state to hurt anyone?
Property ownership is not predicated upon border defense. What is a border, other than an imaginary line the state tells people not to cross? Again, you’re glazing over the assumption that only the state can provide property defense. A defense agency may provide the same type of service that the state does, voluntarily and most likely at a fraction of the cost.
AnCapism does not require or imply a return to undeveloped society, nor does it seek to wipe away the wealth of today’s society. It only calls for a society where royalty cannot further exert their will on everyone at the expense of everyone. No capital destruction required.
You’re arguing human nature as if history is the judge of all things in the future. I could just as easily have said in 1700: “People need religion, there will always be religion, it’s human nature.” It doesn’t look like that today. As long as you continue to use ‘human nature’ as an obfuscation of what you really mean, there’s no legitimacy in any argument deriving from its use. Do you mean by ‘human nature’: a tendency in some people some of the time towards violent behavior? If so, there’s nothing about that which AnCap society couldn’t incorporate.
Could you lay it out again please?
Well yeah, an argument for anarchy may well be an argument for concurrent global anarchy. Until then, minarchy. I’m not too particular about how it all goes down myself.
I contend that world statelessness is unnecessary for the security of a free territory. Go here to discuss that matter:https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/how-does-a-free-market-territory-prevent-a-foreign-government-from-forcing-a-state-unto-them/21329
Clayton
man also possesses reason and is capable of constraining his natural impulses
Man is not to be honestly described as an individual. Some possess reason and constrain natural impulses, sometimes; many, not so often as they ought to; and too many, hardly at all.
Yet how can there be better protection for A and B, if S must tax them in order to provide it?
Because tax revenues buy big tanks, fast fighter-planes, and powerful bombs–all of which utterly destroys more loosely-related, naturally-freer peoples, incidentally; as well as keeping any other collectively-inclined peoples at bay–and all of which secures the necessary building block for all other rights of A and B–and S, ie. their survival itself.
Can the institution of a state reduce aggressive behavior and promote peaceful cooperation, and thus provide for better private security and protection?
Of course it can. It discourages those who would use aggression and have control of their own; it guarantees most private property rights, and attempts to establish equal justice under law; and it stands guard against invasion by foreign nations. It creates all of the elements for a modern society–that a society based upon individual whims could not.
To be sure, S will make peace between A and B but only so that he himself in turn can rob both of them more profitably
If he, S, makes peace between A and B, then the answer to the previous question is again yes: he promotes peace and reduces aggression. And a robber generally provides no service in return for taking from his victim. It’s only a racket if the only real threat is from S himself–no real danger between A and B, or from foreign nations.
Surely S is better protected, but the more he is protected, the less A and B are protected from attacks by S
A necessary trade-off of security concerns. S gains wealth and power; A and B gain wealth and relative security. S leaves office. Government rolls onward. No private nukes.
achieved through the expropriation, i.e., economic disarmament
Bill Gates didn’t start out “well-armed;” but he became so–along with a lot of other nouveaux riche.
Yet, who in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s protector to determine unilaterally—and irrevocably—the sum that the protected must pay for his protection; and the fact is, no one ever has!
Who? Ask the gentlemen who signed the Constitution that question. Or any landed class wishing to secure their wealth and their rights–and ultimately their survival.
Clayton. I appreciate the referral; but I’m tired of reading the arguments of theoreticians telling me that things are what they are only because of a huge misunderstanding along the way. At every step in the evolution of human history, including today, people have made choices that reflect their individual natures; and these separate decisions have led to this collective mess. Along the way common law gave way to imposed, standardized law; because choices were made to impose it, and choices were made not to oppose it. That this piecemeal imposition/opposition battle and balance has wrought the modern state to the virtual exclusion of its predecessors is as irrefutable as the problems inherent in human nature itself. They are one and the same phenomenon.
Hoppe’s point still stands: Enough people are reasonable enough that the species has survived. However much lower that bar may be than might be expected from an animal that is supposed to exhibit higher reason and morality, it is still there. And it has been sufficient to make social order possible, even without the State, which means that it is false to claim that the State is inevitable or constitutive to the social order. Therefore, it is possible for individuals in a stateless society to procure security through voluntary means which means that the Hobbesian myth - that man perpetually under-produces and under-consumes security services in the absence of a State - is simply false. Hoppe pulverizes the Hobbesian myth in the linked article.
Well, I think that’s the trouble… if you think that Hoppe is saying that things are the way they are for some reason other than individual choices, then you completely misunderstand him which is why I asked you to read him in his own words. If you think you’ve read something “like” Hoppe in the past, I’d like to hear who/what it was because I’m not aware of anyone who comes even close to Hoppe when it comes to demolishing the modern jerry-rigged justifications of the State.
You ascribe entirely too much success to the State. It has not replaced common law. Common law - like the free market - is in operation at all times, everywhere… even in North Korea. These terms mask and can sometimes obscure the underlying fact of human choice which never ceases to operate under any tyranny no matter how complete. Statutory law is simply central planning of law itself. A single voice or authority is attempting to determine how all disputes are to be resolved rather than allowing individuals to decide for themselves the terms on which they will agree to settle their disputes. This is precisely the sense in which command economies are economically centrally planned… a single voice or authority determining what goods will be produced and consumed in what quantities.
But just like people traded essential goods on the black market in Soviet Russia, so people settle disputes in their own ways even in the modern world of ubiquitous statutory law. Even some criminal offenses are resolved between individuals outside of the formal structure of law because the individuals involved simply do not like the resolution that the State will impose. So, common law is not dead any more than the free market is dead. Both are manifestations of the ineradicable reality of human choice.
Clayton -