Proposition #43 on why ancap society is not possible

[mahall]

I agree with you that protection costs will be proportional to the value of the resource being defended. that is my fundamental point – saudi oil reserves would be heavily defended, similarly the great lakes, chilean lithium reserves, the mallacca straits, the three gorges dam, megan fox’s ass, et al.

Haha. I can’t disagree with this.

so it stands to reason that if the ability to provide security for these resources is negatively impacted due to a misallocation or mismanagement of the resource then the likelihood that the resource will be annexed by coercion is increased.

Sure, a woman with a diamond ring that is passed out in the ghetto has a high likelihood of her ring being stolen.

Otherwise, why would an ancap varying the level of spending in the first place ! and if the level of spending is critical, and the purpose of the spending is to deter coercion, then a change in the level is equally critical and directly influences the likelihood of conflict over the resource.

I agree - Resources are scare in ancap-land just as they are in statism. People with jewels and treasures in statism will likely lock them in safes in the same manner in which ancap-land will. People utilize private defense when they desire to really be defended (both in statism and ancap).

Otherwise, why would an ancap varying the level of spending in the first place ! and if the level of spending is critical, and the purpose of the spending is to deter coercion, then a change in the level is equally critical and directly influences the likelihood of conflict over the resource.

We are getting close to a moral discussion here. Reminds me of the mindset that the scantily dressed woman was asking to be raped so the rapist need not be punished.

hence ancap society will be violent on the margins where resources are being inefficiently managed and that violence will be motivated by economic profit.

end of story.

You have stated that ancap will legalize the theif’s actions of taking the diamond ring from the passed out woman because economic profit is a motive on a pedestal. I disagree. I’m not saying it won’t happen. I’m simply saying that it won’t be lawful.

To try and form some sort of comprimise here I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll agree with you (subjectively) that the 10 milling machines in the basement could be utilized more effectively to produce goods that individuals want (rather than being ‘excessivly idle’). But to legalize plunder in this occasion is a critical step away from free market principles. It is a threat to voluntary exchange and all ancap has done to limit compulsion.

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply.
See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them,
and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if
the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing
what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil
itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it
invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—
is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and
develop into a system.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly,
defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is
obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that
this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry
is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor
workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The
acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a

whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present day
delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of
everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of
organizing it. - Bastiat’s The Law

[Rettoper]

Sure, a woman with a diamond ring that is passed out in the ghetto has a high likelihood of her ring being stolen.–mahall

I dont see any substantive difference between an undefended diamond ring and an undefended transportation hub, water supply, industrial park, et al.

We are getting close to a moral discussion here. Reminds me of the mindset that the scantily dressed woman was asking to be raped so the rapist need not be punished. – mahall

the rape scenario is not related to my proposition since it is not based on economic profit. the actor in your scenarion is seeking to satisfy a brute and base pleasure need at the risk of severe punishment and no economic gain. These kinds of actors will not have any power in ancap society. Indeed, they will quickly become marginalized.

In contrast, my proposition is based on economic profit driven actors – since their goals are economic as compared to base needs, morality, egalitarianism, nationalism, religion, et al – they will become the most powerful actors on the geopolitik since they will possess the valued economic resources.

You have stated that ancap will legalize the theif’s actions of taking the diamond ring from the passed out woman because economic profit is a motive on a pedestal. I disagree. I’m not saying it won’t happen. I’m simply saying that it won’t be lawful. – mahall

the question legality or justice is irrelevent if the law cant be enforced by force, ask Mubarak. We all know that tax law in the USA is unjust and confiscatory, yet we all submit, including ancaps, because we do not have the means to challenge the existing power structure.

similarly, in ancap society societal laws and norms are meaningless, if they cannot be enforced. An army that possesses tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, ICBMs, is not going to capitulate based on the dictate of briefcase carrying lawyers when ‘push comes to shove’.

Morover, I think citizens in ancap society will glorify and flock to the strongest armies that provide the most effective service and secure the most capital and resources. This kind of army becomes a microsoft, walmart, apple, et al and attracts the most investment and capital.

Lastly, why is it immoral to be successful and strong ? in contrast, why is it moral to be unprofitable and weak ?

indeed, this is statist ‘logic’ applied to security and defense. – namely those societal actors who have a skill set that makes them formidble fighters are not allowed to leverage their God given gifts to better themselves.

Isnt all activity in the free market competitive and predatory ?

Why should force be the only means not acceptable ? I can tell you why… it is a scheme by the weak ans lazy to defend inefficient and unproductive management thereby avoiding the consequences associated with this sloth and wasteful behavior.

But to legalize plunder in this occasion is a critical step away from free market principles. It is a threat to voluntary exchange and all ancap has done to limit compulsion. – mahall

all an owner has to do is provide a measure of security that deters predation ---- it doesnt have to be much. Since there are considerable transaction costs associated with coercion, security wouldnt have to be costly, just enough to insure that the costs of annexing the resource are greater than the value of the resource and the costs required to take it.

Indeed, my guess is that the future cooperative that owns the mississippi river would immediately purchase the rights of a few nuclear tipped missiles to use as a deterrent to possible predation. Likewise, Megan Fox could purchase a contract from a company that provides cruise missiles on demand to retailate against some indiscretion or grope.

it would be fun, it would be productive, but it wouldn’t be peaceful.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly,
defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is
obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that
this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry
is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor
workingmen.–bastiat

This could include the whining from unproductive, wasteful, and inefficient owners of valued resources who would run to ‘the Law’ to protect their under utilized and under defended resource from predation by a productive and efficient owner.

note that their are crimes of omission that need to be enforced, namely the waste and corruption that inefficient owners of valued resources commit in ancap society. Hence they will not be protect from acts of omission, similar to the statist who should not be protected from equally inefficient and wasteful acts of commission.

[Angurse]

I read them, I wasnt impressed, I’ve debunked them.

To debunk is to expose falsehoods, once you actually expose said falsehoods (that is, show why and where they error, not just call them names) you will have debunked them. You simply disregarded them because they are inconvenient.

why hasnt the most effective system emerge by means of the most effective process ?

It takes time, nothing happens overnight.

ponder that, and please no more ridiculous and irrelevent quotes from obscure ‘authorities’ – rather think for yourself and provide your own argument. MOreover, if you use empirical evidence, provide a summation in your own words of the pertinent points.

I’m not going to simply think up history for myself. It may “work” for you but I like to be under the influence of facts and other mischievous things.

[Rettoper]

It takes time, nothing happens overnight. – angurse

40,000 years of human history and no maximal capitalist society emerging out of the detritus of anarchy !!!

Okay, you can continue to hang your hat on ‘it takes time’ in the absence of a reason WHY.

ponder that, and please no more ridiculous and irrelevent quotes from obscure ‘authorities’ – rather think for yourself and provide your own argument. MOreover, if you use empirical evidence, provide a summation in your own words of the pertinent points.–Rettoper

I’m not going to simply think up history for myself. It may “work” for you but I like to be under the influence of facts and other mischievous things.–angurse

I’m not asking you to ‘think up history’ – I am asking you to simply read and summarize what you read.

Do you understand this concept of relating what you have learned from other sources in your own words ?

Lastly, I am issuing you a challenge angurse :

is security necessary in ancap society ?

and if so, how is the amount of security per resource determined ?

and if you dont understand these questions, please ask for clarification.

[Angurse]

40,000 years of human history and no maximal capitalist society emerging out of the detritus of anarchy !!!

Similar things could have been said about democratic societies and toasters. 40,000 years of human history doesn’t reveal a thing about possibilities.

Okay, you can continue to hang your hat on ‘it takes time’ in the absence of a reason WHY.

Thanks.

I’m not asking you to ‘think up history’ – I am asking you to simply read and summarize what you read.

The direct quotes summed it up perfectly. If you can’t figure it what was meant from them I’m afraid my summation would only leave you scratching your head even harder.

and if so, how is the amount of security per resource determined ?

By the owners.

[Rettoper]

40,000 years of human history and no maximal capitalist society emerging out of the detritus of anarchy !!! --Rettoper

Similar things could have been said about democratic societies and toasters. 40,000 years of human history doesn’t reveal a thing about possibilities. – angurse

Wrong, the 'same things’ cannot be said about democratic societies and toasters since they have both been realized.

So again, I challenge you to explain why the most effective system (capitalism) and the most effective means for change (peace) has not resulted in maximal-capitalist society emerging after 40,000 years of human history?

In sum, we all know that maximal-capitalist societies have not emerged, the question is why ?

how is the amount of security per resource determined ? – Rettoper

By the owners. -angurse

obviously, within ancap society we all recognize that the owners decide the amount of security.

my question is how is the amount determined – not who determines the amount of security?

remember, if you don’t understand a question, please ask for clarification.

[nirgrahamUK]

Similar things could have been said

Wrong, the same things cannot be said

reading comprehension fail…?

[Rettoper]

reading comprehension fail…? – nirgrahamuk

Thanks for the lesson, however I didnt come here to improve any obvious deficiencies in my grammar.

So again, Ithe challenge remains — why the most effective system (capitalism) and the most effective means for change (peace) has not resulted in maximal-capitalist society emerging after 40,000 years of human history?

also, we all know that owners determine the level of security in ancap society – however, my challenge is how do they determine the amount of security per resource ?

in sum, when you don’t have the wherewithal to challenge the substance of a message or idea – attack the messenger or the manner in which the message was delivered.

[Angurse]

Wrong, the 'same things’ cannot be said about democratic societies and toasters since they have both been realized.

Was there ever a time when they weren’t realized?

[Rettoper]

was there ever a time when they weren’t realized?-angurse

indeed, however you still have not answered my challenge, save the truth that toasters and democracy exists:

"why hasnt the most effective system (capitalism) emerged via the most effective means for change (peace) ?

Moreover, I challenged you to answer a simple question and the challenge remains unanswered, save the typical misunderstanding and diversion

" How is the level of security determined within ancap society" ?

for example, it is obvious that owners decide the level of security in ancap society, that toasters exist, and that ancap society has not emerged.

what I am challenging you to consider is how much security and why no ancap society.

in sum, if you dont understand a concept or a question – ask for clarification.

[Jack_Roberts]

It is a matter of interest and incentive. Within an anarchist society organisations will have no interest or incentive at using violent force to gain absolute power over everyone else.

There would be various police and defense agencies offering services to varied markets for security and defense. It would not be within the interest of one of these types of organisations to try and become a new government. If they did the population and their security forces would not have an issue resisting this new threat. They would not have communication problems and they would not have technical problems fighting this threat. In fact it would be efficient at fighting off the threat. So efficient that the environment where an organisation would think they had the opportunity to take over the region would never exist. This would ultimately be bad for business and ruin the name of the organisation that attempts to gain absolute power over everyone.

A regional centralized defensive force could exist inside an anarchist society; a government does not necessarily have to exist for that to exist. If the interests of the people within a region are the same, they could combine their efforts towards a common interest, that interest being defense of the region.

If we take an example of the UK becoming an anarchist society and then another country, say Poland. The polish army decides to try and takeover the UK, the UK being anarchist. How do you think the polish would practically take over the country?

The reason anarchist societies do not exist today is because of the state, not because an anarchist society would end up with a state so that is why they don’t exist. Circle logic of fail.

[Rettoper]

A regional centralized defensive force could exist inside an anarchist society; a government does not necessarily have to exist for that to exist. – jack roberts

a territorial monopoly on coercive force is a tenet of statism and supports the thesis of my original post, namely that anarchism will degenerate into statism through coercive means.

The reason anarchist societies do not exist today is because of the state, not because an anarchist society would end up with a state so that is why they don’t exist. Circle logic of fail. --jack roberts

why hasnt anarchist society emerged when government fails ? Moreover, are you saying that we have always had government, hence anarchism has never been possible ?

and more importantly, why is the most effective system (capitalism) incapable or circumventing statist power and abuses and why are ancaps wasting their time promoting a system that cannot overcome statism in the absence of coercion?

lastly, the point of this thread is my assertion that coercion is a beneficial and necessary component of ancap society.

do you believe that coercion will exist in ancap society ?

do you believe that security will be necessary in ancap society ?

and what level of security is required ?

[Jack_Roberts]

a territorial monopoly on coercive force is a tenet of statism and supports the thesis of my original post, namely that anarchism will degenerate into statism through coercive means.

People with a common interest in defending a region are not being coerced. It could even go as far as, organisations competing at supplying defense for a region. So not only would we get defense of the country, but we would get the most efficient defense. That would not be proactive and cause problems for our country. Who knows what sort of defense we would actually have. We could have sam sites in residential neighbourhoods for a silly example.

why hasnt anarchist society emerged when government fails ? Moreover, are you saying that we have always had government, hence anarchism has never been possible ?

Government fails constantly, actually government is one big fail. To say that when government fails anarchism will magically takeover, is to not understand reality. How do you expect an anarchist society to emerge, when as you said, government fails? An anarchist society can emerge very easily by the state making taxation voluntary. That would be the start to an anarchist society. But it will take a lot of hard work from people to educate the rest of the people as to the anarchist teachings before that happens. But that is another discussion.
From what I know, without going back to the primitive era, we have always had a form of government, based on the history which we have, which is subject to the revision of the form of government at the time of writing and future governments. Some regions did not have governments for certain amounts of time, but within the civilised modern world we always had organisation that claimed to be running the regions that they were within. Certain organisations expanded their regions substantially, example British Commonwealth. But even so that does mean that anarchism is not possible. Anarchism requires a form of civilisation so it is not surprising that it was not the predominate system in history.

and more importantly, why is the most effective system (capitalism) incapable or circumventing statist power and abuses and why are ancaps wasting their time promoting a system that cannot overcome statism in the absence of coercion?

I had to read this one a few times because it is full of non-sense. Capitalism is an economic system and the state is a political system of control and dominance and “solutions”. People have been fighting the coercion of the state in its many forms for millennia. The economic system of capitalism will continue with or without the state or central planning or collectivist or monarchies or religious leaders etc.

lastly, the point of this thread is my assertion that coercion is a beneficial and necessary component of ancap society.

do you believe that coercion will exist in ancap society ?

do you believe that security will be necessary in ancap society ?

and what level of security is required ?

Within an anarchist society individuals respect the right to use force to defends ones property. People do not condone nor encourage violence to satisfy ones needs. I do not where you got that misinterpretation of anarchy from.
Of course coercion will exist within anarcho capital society.
Of course security will be necessary.

The level of security that is required will be dictated by the consumers need for security based on several factors.

[Rettoper]

People do not condone nor encourage violence to satisfy ones needs. I do not where you got that misinterpretation of anarchy from.-- jack roberts

Of course coercion will exist within anarcho capital society.-- jack roberts

well which is it ?!

will you have coercion within ancap society or not ?

People do not condone nor encourage violence to satisfy ones needs. I do not where you got that misinterpretation of anarchy from.
. – jack roberts

Of course security will be necessary. --jack roberts

well which is it ?!

will you have theft from coercion within ancap society or not ?

you have to resolve this paradoxical thinking before we proceed.

[filc]

You guys egg him on.

[Jack_Roberts]

well which is it ?!

will you have coercion within ancap society or not ?

You just do not have enough depth in your understanding of what coercion is. You can have coercion in schools or the workplace and even in family and social interactions. If that was a twisted way of asking if you will have a state in an anrcho capital society then of course the answer is no. Unless you like asking loaded and ridiculous questions?

will you have theft from coercion within ancap society or not ?

Yes it is likely that we will have theft by coercion but if it becomes taxation then an organisation starts to fit the definition of the state. But people will be robbed and people will conned, just the same as people are in today’s society. The only difference would be the way that policing, investigation, insurance and arbitration are handled.

[Angurse]

indeed

That admission is all thats needed. All of your queries about why it doesn’t exist now are utterly fruitless.

however you still have not answered my challenge, save the truth that toasters and democracy exists:

Yet, as you admit, that hasn’t always been the truth. Perhaps you should think more about that.

"why hasnt the most effective system (capitalism) emerged via the most effective means for change (peace) ?

Sorry, I can’t answer your question, as its incoherent, peace isn’t a means. Rewrite more clearly if you want a response.

for example, it is obvious that owners decide the level of security in ancap society, that toasters exist, and that ancap society has not emerged.

I have no idea what this pertains to, if its obvious to you that owners decide the level of security, why are you asking the question again. I’ve already answered the question as to why ancap society hasn’t emerged.

what I am challenging you to consider is how much security and why no ancap society.

Both challenges have been met, in the future please take the time to read my replies more carefully.

[Rettoper]

it is manifestly absurd to support ancap society on the grounds that:

It takes time, nothing happens overnight.–angurse

and,

Similar things could have been said about democratic societies and toasters. 40,000 years of human history doesn’t reveal a thing about possibilities.–angures

in sum, your defense of ancap society is based on the following “logic”:

ancap society doesnt exist,
liberal democracy doesnt exist,
liberal democracy emerges,
hence ancap society is confirmed since liberal democracy emerges !?

using this “logic” anything imaginable that doesnt exist can be confirmed simply because toasters and liberal democracy exist?!

nonetheless, you still have not answered my challenge:

"why hasnt the most effective system (capitalism) emerged via the most effective means for change (peace) ? --Rettoper

Sorry, I can’t answer your question, as its incoherent, peace isn’t a means. Rewrite more clearly if you want a response. --angruse

(peace) = peaceful means, non-coercive, voluntary, et al.

semantic difficulties aside, the challenge remains:

"why hasnt the most effective system (capitalism) emerged via the most effective means for change (peace) ?

I have no idea what this pertains to, if its obvious to you that owners decide the level of security, why are you asking the question again. I’ve already answered the question as to why ancap society hasn’t emerged. – angurse

it is obvious that owners decide the level of security for a given resource. My challenge to you is what factors determine the how much security is determined by the owner for a given resource?

and if not, what factors or considerations determine security costs in ancap society?

Both challenges have been met, in the future please take the time to read my replies more carefully.–angurse

and no, your assertion that liberal democracies and toaster exist, hence ancap society is possible is not an answer. Moreover, your statement of the obvious ‘owners decide the level of security’ does not answer the question of how much security per resource.

I am eagerly awaiting more imaginative semantic and fallacious diversions .

[Rettoper]

Yes it is likely that we will have theft by coercion but if it becomes taxation then an organisation starts to fit the definition of the state. But people will be robbed and people will conned, just the same as people are in today’s society. The only difference would be the way that policing, investigation, insurance and arbitration are handled.–jack roberts

so you agree that coercion will exist in ancap society and that some coercive activity will be motivated by economic gain.

am I correct that this is your assertion ?

[nirgrahamUK]

@Rettoper

Yes it is likely that we will have theft by coercion but if it becomes taxation then an organisation starts to fit the definition of the state. But people will be robbed and people will conned, just the same as people are in today’s society. The only difference would be the way that policing, investigation, insurance and arbitration are handled.–jack roberts

so you agree that coercion will exist in ancap society and that some coercive activity will be motivated by economic gain.

am I correct that this is your assertion ?

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/exploitation-of-security/14531/25