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?
That depends upon whether these hypothetical elite are good at providing for their own enrichment and continued existence. If you answer, Heck yes, then it seems a safe assumption that they have made provision for their continued financial and weapons-based dominance over newly-defenseless masses.
A defense agency may provide the same type of service that the state does, voluntarily and most likely at a fraction of the cost.
I don’t buy this. Private soldiers are expensive and would require expensive weaponry at least equal to their opponents. A free market society, where no one is even forced to contribute financially, let alone by take up arms, couldn’t match the manpower, the firepower, or the fighting solidarity of a state military, if for no other reason than that the requirement that everyone agree in advance limits the size of the community and with it the size of the defense force, as well as the total contributions to it.
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
I honestly have no idea what it is you think I really mean by human nature, besides the aggregate flaws among us all that daily run us roughshod, intentionally and otherwise, over the rights of others. Is it really debatable that ancap societies, if they were the natural state of mankind, would already and forever exist? What has prevented this–or ruined it–if not the flawed, ignorant, aggressive natures of other humans? Do you think that a lack of education is all that separates a career criminal, or a serial killer, from an honest citizen? Maybe that’s where we aren’t connecting.
I believe that some people are born predisposed to selfishness and aggression and sadism; and that no amount of education will cure them of the hardwiring that has them deriving pleasure at the expense of others. It makes them feel powerful, and good, to hurt others and to take what is not theirs. If the number of these people were quite small, or these traits weren’t present to a smaller extent in all of us, then the world would be an all ancap world already. If in the 1700’s someone had predicted that over 300 years later there would still be lots of ignorant, selfish, aggressive people who were totally uninterested in being educated about the virtues of a voluntary, ancap society, they would have been right on the money.
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.
Could you lay it out again please?
The Social Contract is not a valid contract; but it is nevertheless an enforceable contract. Individual rights are predicated upon the survival of individuals–on the right to life. If survival itself depends upon securing control of limited natural resources; and such control cannot be maintained absent a limited state system, primarily in the form of a combined defense against competing collectives; then individual rights must be partially subsumed by a state system–only to the extent necessary for ensuring life itself. If technology advances to a point where individual survival is either no longer dependent upon limited natural resources or no longer physically imperiled by other humans, then the state might dissolve naturally.
That all other rights are not absolute, when the right to life is imperiled, may be demonstrated by a simple thought experiment:
Imagine a man with a nuke in his backyard, set to go off in one day. Anyone within a ten-mile radius is dead if it detonates. In securing the right to life his neighbors must violate his private property rights and defuse the bomb–if necessary revoking hisright to life, in defense of their own. This is not so much a case of the many overwhelming the few–might makes right–as a case of the peaceable-many overcoming the threatening-few, or the single aggressor.
Mortality, limited resources, and finite living space all impose real limitations on the absolute inviolability of rights. The Social Contract, insofar as it secures the right to life, and by extension all other rights, is a special case of an imposed implicit contract–unfortunate, but a real-world reflection of the supremacy of the right to life.
If man is not an individual then what is he? A man’s decision not to restrain his impulses does not surrender his status as an individual. The definition of individual has no bearing on “reason” or “constraining natural impulses”. Maybe not all men are admirable individuals, certainly many of them are despicable individuals, but they are all nonetheless individuals.
Are you talking about an anarchic society defending itself from states? Or the functions of defense agencies within an anarchic society? It sounds like the former and I’ll assume so.
Firstly, an anarchic society will accumulate wealth faster than a state because it lacks the wealth-destroying policies of economic controls, taxation & distribution, business cycles/inflation, and peace-time defense spending. They will have more to spend during a crisis.
Secondly, without a ban on firearms, the citizenry will be armed. Bearing arms is an important part of self-ownership. A free society will have realized the importance of self-ownership and will in all probability be heavily armed.
Thirdly, the free society is not without an established defensive force. It has the various defense agencies. During an aggressive war it would be in their best interests to form a temporary union to repel the invader and avoid destruction or taxation.
Fourthly, the free society is decentralized, offering no strategic targets to the invader. This means that in order to subordinate the population, the invader has to conquer every single household, which remember is armed.
So the invaders are fighting an alliance of wealthy defense agencies, a wealthy guerilla warrior population, with no strategic targets in hostile territory. If the state really wanted to destroy the free society and not just enslave or tax them, they could probably nuke them. But then what have they earned? A desolated land and the enmity of all respectable states. Remember that the great empires of history have been incapable of defeating guerilla warriors. Guerillas know the terrain and strategic points, can cut off supply lines, terrorize and harass, assassinate leaders, sabotage equipment, etc. The invader would have to kill all the civilians and, as outlined above, there would likely be greater detriment than benefit to this decision.
So do defense agencies. Somehow in your world, only monopolistic coercive defenders have the capability to restore order but civilized voluntary defenders only create chaos.
The real threat is from S. He is the aggressor
You ignore the point of the quote, that A & B lose security to the gain of S. Also, what is wrong with private nukes? That would be the ultimate defense of a free society to a state. Once a free society acquires nukes, then the above scenario is unnecessary.
Choices were made not to oppose it under threat of violence, as is the way with states. History is proof of nothing. If you said in 1400 that everyone would be religious, you would be wrong today. You would also be wrong if you said that monarchy would always exist. Or the flat earth theory. “human nature” proves nothing either, as there are mechanisms designed to handle crime in AnCap society. History proves nothing, it is merely a record of what has been.
it is false to claim that the State is inevitable or constitutive to the social order.
The state is not essential to the establishment of a social order. The encroachment of the state is, however, highly likely where resources are not claimed by a “social order” with a military defense sufficient to match the might of a state military. Exceptions exist only where two or more states stalemate one another, or the costs of conquering the territory outweigh the value of the resources within it.
Therefore, it is possible for individuals in a stateless society to procure security through voluntary means
Procuring any security is not procuring sufficient security. But in my first post at this forum a few days ago I conceded that a free community could provide a defense by procuring a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter or at least strongly punish a potential invader. Logistics regarding development, maintenance, control and upgrading, nothwithstanding.
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
I honestly can’t judge whether or not I’ve read someone like him, without reading him. (But I’ve read Ayn Rand’s non-fiction until my head hurt; von Mises’ Theory of Money and Credit, and his Socialism; etc., ad nauseum) That I took apart Hoppe’s argument so easily, just in the excerpt that you quoted, assures me that it would be equally frustrating to read further. I already read the link that AJ provided above; and easily took it apart too. Wanting something to be workable, as they do, and giving real-world examples of it today, are two different propositions. I’m tired of reading about wishful thinking, no matter how eloquently written.
You ascribe entirely too much success to the State. It has not replaced common law
Common law is not at issue; statutory law is not required for the establishment of a state, a state military and taxes, e.g. 18th-century England. I appreciate the wisdom of common law–that it’s steeped in tradition and a shared sense of justice. But once those traditions are destroyed/supplanted by a state invasion/colonization, how does one re-establish common law? It’s a return to Eden. If you want common law here, for example, where do you begin to find its followers? I personally would rather follow a blind, statutory law than leave my fate to a “common-sense” interpretation of a precedent application of a precedent application. But to each his own.
Well, I’ve actually thought about this. I wrote a somewhat lengthy article on the subject of law here… I am as averse to wishful thinking as you are but YMMV. My conclusion is that the nature of law - statutory or otherwise - is inherently conservative and resistant to sudden shocks and changes, as well it ought to be. Like you, I’d rather have the devil I know than simply throw the gates wide open to allow a mob of free market arbitrators to start re-writing the law code as they see fit.
But I look at law as a good produced on a market in the above article (though in a different way than most treatments of law I’ve read) and I believe that the market in law (common law, free market arbitration) has been atrophied by well over a century of State oppression, at least, in the West. Hence, any move away from the system of statutory law must start with the law as it is.
The obvious answer to progress is simple political disaggregation, that is, secession. And something like your proposed constitution could be of use in this, providing a framework for ever-smaller political units to look to as they face the problem of how to build their own local government that is consistent with the laws and norms to which they have long been accustomed.
If only… that’s what polycentric/free market law is all about. To each his own. Under the territorial monopolistic system of national statutory law we have today, there is no to each his own, there’s to each whatever the Powers That Be say there will be.
So let me get this straight. The elites have to wait to dominate the population until the population is no longer defended by… the elites? Okaay… The only thing an elite family could do without the state is do business. If they did bad business then they lose money without all the state legal protections, competition restrictions, and subsidizing. If they did good business then there’s no problem.
It’s simple, the state does not have the incentive structure i.e. profits, to tell them how efficient they’re being. That and it is to their benefit to be inefficient so as to tax the populace more and get fatter checks. Private agencies know when they’re being efficent by their balance sheet. That and it is to their benefit to lower their prices to attract more customers. The private agencies would expand in competition with each other by efficient means whereas the state agency would expand, bloated with tax money. The money that would go to the state for defense would still be going into defense spending, but split between more efficient institutions, thus a higher defense output. When the private agencies would band together, the state would be far outmatched.
This is a very strange way to view something (seems like empiricism). Obviously the state exists out of normalcy bias established by elites. Elites do not want to surrender their means to power. Listen to your own argument, human nature is bad and self-serving. So the humans in power don’t want to surrender their position by adopting a society which has no place for dominators.
Precisely.
**
Utilitarianism through force begets evil. Limited natural resources are made less limited by capitalism and defense may be provided by the market.
So they know that the bomb is set to go off definitely? I’d say that’s aggression. He’s violating everyone’s rights by bombing them.
Well, I’ve actually thought about this. I wrote a somewhat lengthy article on the subject of law here… I am as averse to wishful thinking as you are but YMMV.
I apologize for my lack of tech savvy and mastery of net/law lingo; but I couldn’t access the webpage via that link, and I don’t know what YMMV stands for. (I also apologize for the tardy reply; but my workdays start at 4 a.m.)
The obvious answer to progress is simple political disaggregation, that is, secession. And something like your proposed constitution could be of use in this, providing a framework for ever-smaller political units to look to as they face the problem of how to build their own local government that is consistent with the laws and norms to which they have long been accustomed.
Thank you for your integrity. I gratefully accept your ringing endorsement?
Under the territorial monopolistic system of national statutory law we have today, there is no to each his own, there’s to each whatever the Powers That Be say there will be
This forces our discussion back toward the question of whether it is safe and settled enough in the modern world, vis a vis, control of resources and respect for existing property claims, that the national state/military apparatus could be freely dismantled, perhaps dividing its components between the States, as a preliminary. Most would argue that divided control is decreased control; divided ownership is weakened ownership. I’m afraid I’m still in that camp, with respect to a modern military/nuclear arsenal; and I gather that you never were, and never will be. But clearly I would not have re-written the Constitution in such a way as to establish local legal determinism if I opposed the dismantling of Congress, or the body of federal statutory law that it has imposed. And, furthermore, if the natural result of granting people the right to rewrite their laws led to that very dismantling of the national military/statutory apparatus, so be it. I’ll stand or die with their democratic choice.
My Google Chrome doesn’t access the page; but the pasted link took me to a thread about Troy Davis. I read your arguments there; I hope that that was your design. But even there, I couldn’t access that embedded link.
I agree with your assertion that the legal structure itself must be subject to indictment. Perhaps you’ll humor me in return, and scan these reforms built into my proposed system, each designed to increase the accountability and the liability of our “leaders”–perhaps offering me the usual well-informed criticism:
Every public official within the United States but the President, either elected or appointed by an elected officer, may be replaced in a summer electoral initiative when, among an option of any precinct-certified candidates who meet all other qualifications for the office of an incumbent, an option to require the immediate replacement of an appointee by the appointer, where applicable, and an option to retain the status quo, one of the two former options receives an aggregate of fifty-one percent of votes cast for said office, among at least ninety-five percent of precincts subject to its oversight and authority. Nor shall the aforementioned appointer during the existing term remove the duly-elected replacement-appointee from office, unless for misconduct therein; though all public officials may be replaced in any electoral initiative when a vacating of their offices for any other reason shall have necessitated a special election.
The judges, both of the Supreme Court and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, but shall be subject to the same criteria for replacement as are all other appointed public officials;
And when, in the judgment of the jury, a material finding of the judge or the sentence imposed is in error or unreasonable, the jury by a unanimous vote may effect the filing of a notice of appeal of the decision, in the name of the defendant.
Or the People may, after two years of the existing four-year term, in the summer electoral initiative, replace the current President when, between an option to retain the status quo, an option to remove the President in order that the Vice President may become President, and an option to remove the President in order that the Attorney General may become President, one of the latter two options receives an aggregate of fifty-one percent of votes cast for the office among at least ninety-five percent of the precincts of the United States.
No administrative rule or regulation (think, state power), except those indispensible to the protection of public safety, shall be enforceable where, regarding the regulated, a presumption of malice, neglect or imbecility inheres in the requirements thereof: But any irreparable injury to person or to property, private or public, whose proximate cause is a business or governmentalstandard or procedure violative of due care and common sense (think common law) shall nullify the limited liability or the official immunity of the authorizing and enforcing officers, respectively, both in civil and in criminal suits.
My Google Chrome doesn’t access the page; but the pasted link took me to a thread about Troy Davis. I read your arguments there; I hope that that was your design. But even there, I couldn’t access that embedded link.
I agree with your assertion that the legal structure itself must be subject to indictment. Perhaps you’ll humor me in return, and scan these reforms built into my proposed system, each designed to increase the accountability and the liability of our “leaders”–perhaps offering me the usual well-informed criticism:
Every public official within the United States but the President, either elected or appointed by an elected officer, may be replaced in a summer electoral initiative when, among an option of any precinct-certified candidates who meet all other qualifications for the office of an incumbent, an option to require the immediate replacement of an appointee by the appointer, where applicable, and an option to retain the status quo, one of the two former options receives an aggregate of fifty-one percent of votes cast for said office, among at least ninety-five percent of precincts subject to its oversight and authority. Nor shall the aforementioned appointer during the existing term remove the duly-elected replacement-appointee from office, unless for misconduct therein; though all public officials may be replaced in any electoral initiative when a vacating of their offices for any other reason shall have necessitated a special election.
The judges, both of the Supreme Court and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, but shall be subject to the same criteria for replacement as are all other appointed public officials;
And when, in the judgment of the jury, a material finding of the judge or the sentence imposed is in error or unreasonable, the jury by a unanimous vote may effect the filing of a notice of appeal of the decision, in the name of the defendant.
Or the People may, after two years of the existing four-year term, in the summer electoral initiative, replace the current President when, between an option to retain the status quo, an option to remove the President in order that the Vice President may become President, and an option to remove the President in order that the Attorney General may become President, one of the latter two options receives an aggregate of fifty-one percent of votes cast for the office among at least ninety-five percent of the precincts of the United States.
No administrative rule or regulation (think, state power), except those indispensible to the protection of public safety, shall be enforceable where, regarding the regulated, a presumption of malice, neglect or imbecility inheres in the requirements thereof: But any irreparable injury to person or to property, private or public, whose proximate cause is a business or governmentalstandard or procedure violative of due care and common sense (think common law) shall nullify the limited liability or the official immunity of the authorizing and enforcing officers, respectively, both in civil and in criminal suits.
My Google Chrome doesn’t access the page; but the pasted link took me to a thread about Troy Davis. I read your arguments there; I hope that that was your design. But even there, I couldn’t access that embedded link.
I agree with your assertion that the legal structure itself must be subject to indictment. Perhaps you’ll humor me in return, and scan these reforms built into my proposed system, each designed to increase the accountability and the liability of our “leaders”–offering me the usual well-informed criticism:
Every public official within the United States but the President, either elected or appointed by an elected officer, may be replaced in a summer electoral initiative when, among an option of any precinct-certified candidates who meet all other qualifications for the office of an incumbent, an option to require the immediate replacement of an appointee by the appointer, where applicable, and an option to retain the status quo, one of the two former options receives an aggregate of fifty-one percent of votes cast for said office, among at least ninety-five percent of precincts subject to its oversight and authority. Nor shall the aforementioned appointer during the existing term remove the duly-elected replacement-appointee from office, unless for misconduct therein; though all public officials may be replaced in any electoral initiative when a vacating of their offices for any other reason shall have necessitated a special election.
The judges, both of the Supreme Court and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, but shall be subject to the same criteria for replacement as are all other appointed public officials;
And when, in the judgment of the jury, a material finding of the judge or the sentence imposed is in error or unreasonable, the jury by a unanimous vote may effect the filing of a notice of appeal of the decision, in the name of the defendant.
Or the People may, after two years of the existing four-year term, in the summer electoral initiative, replace the current President when, between an option to retain the status quo, an option to remove the President in order that the Vice President may become President, and an option to remove the President in order that the Attorney General may become President, one of the latter two options receives an aggregate of fifty-one percent of votes cast for the office among at least ninety-five percent of the precincts of the United States.
No administrative rule or regulation (think, state power), except those indispensible to the protection of public safety, shall be enforceable where, regarding the regulated, a presumption of malice, neglect or imbecility inheres in the requirements thereof: But any irreparable injury to person or to property, private or public, whose proximate cause is a business or governmentalstandard or procedure violative of due care and common sense (think common law) shall nullify the limited liability or the official immunity of the authorizing and enforcing officers, respectively, both in civil and in criminal suits.
Perhaps try a different browser (Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox… pretty much anything other than Internet Explorer).
You can also copy/paste the link into your browser address bar. Here it is:
My Google Chrome doesn’t access the page; but the pasted link took me to a thread about Troy Davis. I read your arguments there; I hope that that was your design. But even there, I couldn’t access that embedded link. In fact, I couldn’t even quote the link and still send this reply.
I agree with your assertion that the legal structure itself must be subject to indictment. Perhaps you’ll humor me in return, and scan these reforms built into my proposed system, each designed to increase the accountability and the liability of our “leaders”–offering me the usual well-informed criticism:
Every public official within the United States but the President, either elected or appointed by an elected officer, may be replaced in a summer electoral initiative when, among an option of any precinct-certified candidates who meet all other qualifications for the office of an incumbent, an option to require the immediate replacement of an appointee by the appointer, where applicable, and an option to retain the status quo, one of the two former options receives an aggregate of fifty-one percent of votes cast for said office, among at least ninety-five percent of precincts subject to its oversight and authority. Nor shall the aforementioned appointer during the existing term remove the duly-elected replacement-appointee from office, unless for misconduct therein; though all public officials may be replaced in any electoral initiative when a vacating of their offices for any other reason shall have necessitated a special election.
The judges, both of the Supreme Court and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, but shall be subject to the same criteria for replacement as are all other appointed public officials;
And when, in the judgment of the jury, a material finding of the judge or the sentence imposed is in error or unreasonable, the jury by a unanimous vote may effect the filing of a notice of appeal of the decision, in the name of the defendant.
Or the People may, after two years of the existing four-year term, in the summer electoral initiative, replace the current President when, between an option to retain the status quo, an option to remove the President in order that the Vice President may become President, and an option to remove the President in order that the Attorney General may become President, one of the latter two options receives an aggregate of fifty-one percent of votes cast for the office among at least ninety-five percent of the precincts of the United States.
No administrative rule or regulation (think, state power), except those indispensible to the protection of public safety, shall be enforceable where, regarding the regulated, a presumption of malice, neglect or imbecility inheres in the requirements thereof: But any irreparable injury to person or to property, private or public, whose proximate cause is a business or governmentalstandard or procedure violative of due care and common sense (think common law) shall nullify the limited liability or the official immunity of the authorizing and enforcing officers, respectively, both in civil and in criminal suits.
@Daryl: Well, I read your proposals but they strike me as… random. Why 51% and not 50.1% Why 95% and not 99% or 67% or whatever. And I don’t even want to get into definitions of what is a precinct and so on. You’re smart so surely you understand that written law is a word game and no matter what rules you write it can always be twisted as need requires. The more you write, there more there is to twist. The less you write, the more room there is to simply nullify the intent of whatever was written (think of the Commerce Clause, for example).
The Confucians believed that the law should never be written down. “Unlike many other major civilizations where written law was held in honor and often attributed to divine origin, law in early China was viewed in purely secular terms and its initial appearance was greeted with hostility by Confucian thinkers as indicative of a serious moral decline, a violation of human morality, and even a disturbance of the total cosmic order. Historically, the people’s awareness and acceptance of ethical norms was shaped far more by the pervasive influence of custom and usage of property and by inculcating moral precepts than by any formally enacted system of law.”
While I think that writing is a powerful tool for furthering our understanding of law, I agree with the Confucians, in principle. Written law is a sign of serious moral decline.
It may be totally unrelated, but ever since trying that link I’ve had trouble even getting back to this fourth thread page. I’m gonna leave it alone for the moment.
Well, I read your proposals but they strike me as… random
Well, I presented them completely out of context. My bad.
Why 51% and not 50.1%
The underlying reasoning here is that a political system broken down into its various local voting precincts, in which any number of national and local issues would be decided four times per year, would become prohibitively burdensome if additional run-off elections were possible for most or many votes–by virtue of there being no clear majority in favor of a given act or candidate. It also imparts a sense of “ownership” to the prevailing majority; which, in the case of a simple plurality, would be absent. That it could have been 50.1%, instead of 51%, is a valid, if technical, knock. I guess I’m a round-numbers, no-wiggle-room guy.
Why 95% and not 99% or 67% or whatever.
95% represents an anticipatory countering of the possibility that a few recalcitrant precincts could in effect exercise a veto over any proposed national act or candidacy, simply by refusing to certify the initiative or the candidate in their precinct. While that might at first seem to be a desirable power; imagine pieces of legislation or candidates advancing proposals in support of common law. That one or two precincts–and maybe ten thousand people–could stop that process would be unacceptable and dysfunctional.
written law is a word game and no matter what rules you write it can always be twisted as need requires
In a system where the People must pass any law written; they are one step advanced toward self-determination–from one in which elite representatives do it for them. Don’t make perfect the enemy of the good. And that written law can be distorted by judges’ decisions is at least partially remedied by the Peoples’ power to throw out the judges themselves.
I can’t even begin to enumerate the impracticalities of unwritten law–once such law is lost. It requires such a cultural conformity, such a submission to custom, that the modern world may have seen the last of its new formation. But I do hope there’s a heaven; and I have no doubt that such a system reigns there. (Not meant as patronizing.)
Pssst - Jargon, I think DLD is fishing for people to buy his book and join his “movement”. Hence why he won’t answer challenges that don’t sound at all accommodating to him (pace Clayton).
The only thing an elite family could do without the state is do business. If they did bad business then they lose money without all the state legal protections, competition restrictions, and subsidizing. If they did good business then there’s no problem
You’re jumping straight from the current state system into an ancap version of the world. I was dealing with a more realistic middle ground, where the current order collapses, and a scramble for control of resources ensues. It doesn’t seem improbable that these hypothetical, well-positioned, wealthy elite would have used their advantages to provide for the security necessary to continue their dominance, no matter the condition of the masses–through ownership of strategic resources, and/ or ownership of the advanced weaponry necessary to reestablish such ownership.
It’s simple, the state does not have the incentive structure i.e. profits, to tell them how efficient they’re being. That and it is to their benefit to be inefficient so as to tax the populace more and get fatter checks. Private agencies know when they’re being efficent by their balance sheet. That and it is to their benefit to lower their prices to attract more customers.
You’re forcing me to bring up the issue of human nature again, as a reminder of the darker aspects of mankind–flaws which led to centralized state systems in the first place–negative predispositions that would be far more easily converted into aggression in an unfettered, capitalistic society–where, presumably, as many power-seekers and free-riders would voluntarily choose a state system as do do so today–and where no imposed state apparatus would coerce their contributions for protections of the rules and laws and rights of all. What stops the power-seekers and the free-riders then from colluding, so as to deprive the productive citizens of sufficient contributions to establish an effective defense of property and person? Or from sabotaging the forces of protection themselves? Or are you advocating a libertarianism that bases its model for society upon the assumption that we attained a new stage of human evolution, an internet-enlightened new race of Man?
the state exists out of normalcy bias established by elites
I’m not familiar with this term, normalcy bias. But my guess is that what you might call an implanted/elite-established desire for the comforts of a secure survival, even at the expense of absolute individual autonomy, I would call an inherent survival instinct in human nature.
So the humans in power don’t want to surrender their position by adopting a society which has no place for dominators.
I’m not sure I follow you here either. But if you mean that the hypothetical evil elite have no desire to live an ancap lifestyle; I’d agree. Reread my second answer, if you want to know what I think would happen to them in an ancap society.
But evil people are often *self-*destructive too. Sometimes they go too far; and they could theoretically bleed too much from their victims. If the system fails as a result, then the question arises: Have they been manipulative and forward-thinking enough to provide for such a collapse? Well, the very “bleeding” itself might be seen as a parasitic enrichment designed both to empower them over and to insulate them from the masses all along. So the death of the system wouldn’t kill the parasite: it only makes it easier to feed freely upon the struggling masses.
Limited natural resources are made less limited by capitalism and defense may be provided by the market.
Limited is limited, with respect to water, arable land and mineable metals and minerals. I’ve already addressed the shortcomings of a private defense agency.
So they know that the bomb is set to go off definitely? I’d say that’s aggression. He’s violating everyone’s rights by bombing them
My point was that the bomber’s private property rights are not sacred, where his use of his property endangers those around him. The same might be said when one person wishes to poison their part of a river, or live in free communities, upon arable that could sustain the survival of others who do not want freedom. But it’s their property, you might argue, the others can migrate somewhere else. Yes, and the bomber’s neighbors could all move somewhere else, too. But in a world of limited natural resources and finite land masses the real choices are not so plentiful. So the right to life supercedes all other rights. And whoever stands in the way of anyone’s survival is likely to object to the outcome. But their “lesser” rights, those other than the right to life itself, cannot come before anyone else’s right to life. And thus, ironically, we have killing and wars for the natural resources that sustain life; thus we have states and borders that ensure this right to life to the greatest number. And thus all the protests of the rights absolutists, that their lesser rights and freedoms aren’t fully respected, fall mostly on deaf ears–living deaf ears.
You’re not addressing the fundamental principles of the question. If these elites do indeed buy important resources, what then? What can they do without an apparatus to force people and exclude competition? What is dominance? What will they do with advanced weaponry? Re-establish the state? In that case, the only downside of AnCapism is ending up back where you started.
Anyways no one expects order to arise from chaos. The best path to AnCapism is spreading ideas, so the state can shrink and shrink until the people are ready to vote to voluntarize taxes. That would be a stable transition. People would stop paying taxes for monopolized services and entrepeneurs would recognize the opportunity and start enterprises to replace the state functions. Also, recognize that chaos is far more improbable in capital-accumulated societies than in desperate ones. Wealthier societies are more prone to non-violent resolutions because they have less to fight over (or rather more to not fight over).
And once again you’re forcing me to define your term ‘human nature’. Somehow, even after all the explanations, you assume that AnCaps assume that people are angels and won’t commit crimes. No such assumption lies at the foundation of AnCap organization. You could refer to the previous posts about private defense and read them, or I can draw it out again. First of all, purely private cartels are unlikely. This is because the very motive which makes a person join a cartel (self-interest) is the motive which will cause them to break out of it. But I suppose a price-fixing cartel is different than a conspiracy to establish a state. In the case of people trying to create a state, a state requires a tax base. This means that this group of colluders will have to extract funding from the people, who are now free. Why should they become unfree? They are presumably armed, given the culture of freedom and an absence of prohibition of firearms. Ok, you say, so the colluders play hardball and march an army on the free people. Then they would subscribe to the services of other defense agencies. Free people vs Statists. The free people have a few advantages here. Firstly, they are defending and may prepare. Secondly, they have better reason to fight than the statists and may convert enemies into their ranks. They are after all the innocent non-aggressors. Thirdly, the statists need them alive. What good is a tax base if they are too dead to pay their taxes? This rules out nuclear genocide. Fourthly, it’s a standing statist army vs. standing free army and free guerilla army. The statists must confront the defense agencies that are defending the free people, but they must also confront the free people who are presumably conducting sabotage, recon, propaganda, etc. Fifthly (?), where is the money for this statist assault coming from? Out of the coffers of the elite? Well they better hope that their savings hold out, because they aren’t gaining any revenue from the free people. The only people fighting for them are the ones that they are paying. There’s a host of other reasons that this situation wouldn’t occur in the first place and if you want me to go through more of them then I can.
Normalcy Bias goes like this: “Oh, we can’t get rid of the Federal Reserve! There would be chaos. All the smart people say it’s good, and so do the newspapers. Who would take care of the money, that’s just insanity!”
It is the assumption that the current norms are in place for the best reasons.
The elites don’t want an AnCap society because it makes them then non-elites. The state is the power of the elites. It is how they corner markets for corporations, get steady income from taxpayers, build up standing armies, and collect information on everyone. If AnCapism were in place it would be almost impossible for them to restore a state, not only for the reasons outlined above, but because it’s the most desirable possible organization.
That’s a great insight, and I think it’s possible that that’s what they’re doing now. But how is that the fault of AnCapism? Without taxes or a central bank, they couldn’t do that. I realize that it will probably be difficult to defeat the families but it would be difficult to defeat them under any system of social organization. I do think that if the bloodlines of these families were severed, any system of social organization would be easier on the people.
**
Limited is limited, and that’s why people work instead of frolic. That won’t change in the near future. What are the problems of a PDA?
And MY point is that when people are endangered they have a right to recourse. Respect of private property doesn’t mean that someone can pollute a river, that’s absurd. Respect of private property means that you can’t pollute a river because then you’re polluting someone’s property. That affected person may then seek restitution in blood or payment, depending on the crime. This is mostly true in America but is distorted in favor of elitists so that the state is the one who arbitrates private property disputes, which then favors those who own the state. In an AnCap society a person may choose his legal setting. Private courts compete for business and thus have an incentive to be the most objective. If a court rules regularly in favor of corporations, guess what? No ones going to bring their suits to them.
Bombing someone with nukes is aggression, and if a neighbor knows that his neighbor has set a timer on a nuke then he is justified in securing his person against the threat.
Property rights aren’t ‘sacred’ to the extent that people may kill others, after all, the killed person’s property rights have been violated. I find the above response absurd in the extreme, displaying an ignorance of libertarian theory.