Question for an-caps

Economics Economics Questions
1

SO if government interference in markets is illegitimate, then under anarcho-capitalism, what should happen to fortunes accumulated in part due to government interference in markets? Would crony capitalists keep their assets, or be forced to give them up?

What should happen to government resources, for example? If free markets were suddenly instituted, economy wide, then wouldn’t government assets be bought up in great part by resources accumulated through corporate cronyism?

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the individuals who accumulated great power and wealth in the Soviet system were allowed to buy up the assets of the state. Control of resources often remained in more or less the same few hands.

Would this be avoided if the U.S. government collapsed and were replaced by anarcho-capitalism, and if so, how?

2

Anarcho-Capitalism would not arise from a “collapse” in the Soviet sense. It would almost certainly arise from a string of reductions in the size of government or from and an Agorist black market transition. With either of these the amount of crony capitalism left would likely be minimal by the time An-Cap was realized.

It is important to note that Anarcho-Capitalism describes a system, not a path to create such a system, so a good answer in many cases might be “I don’t know”.

3

“what should happen to fortunes accumulated in part due to government interference in markets?”

Since the free market price of anything can fluctuate, one cannot take the difference between the government intervention price and the flexible free market price as restitution to consumers.

“Would crony capitalists keep their assets, or be forced to give them up?”

Any government aid they received should be repaid to the taxpayers.

“What should happen to government resources, for example?”

Convert the resources to a currency and return to currency to the taxpayers.

“If free markets were suddenly instituted, economy wide, then wouldn’t government assets be bought up in great part by resources accumulated through corporate cronyism?”

Does not corporate cronyism require a government which does not exist in the scenario you are suggesting?

“When the Soviet Union collapsed, the individuals who accumulated great power and wealth in the Soviet system were allowed to buy up the assets of the state. Control of resources often remained in more or less the same few hands.”

The Soviet Union collapsed due to its flawed ideology. It was replaced by power seekers in a new government, not a free market.

“Would this be avoided if the U.S. government collapsed and were replaced by anarcho-capitalism, and if so, how?”

The reason for the collapse of the U.S. can affect its aftermath. The U.S. can become bankrupt, like the Soviet Union, and be followed by another government. Anarcho-capitalism will be implemented when people want it, not when central planners approve of it.

4

There goes our only hope for the ancap society.

5

I turn the question back at you. What can you do about those that have accumulated crony wealth?

6

I would say there probably isn’t much you could do. I mean, many of us still live in America when technically the land was settled by force. Life is unfair. But like swimmingpie said, the only way an-cap would come about is by a gradual reduction in government scope or that Soviet style collapse. Who knows what would happen with the latter.

7

Crony capitalists should keep their wealth. Most large organizations would probably just dissolve, since they are propped up by the government in the first place (corporations are a creation of the government). Without the large barriers to entry in the marketplace, they would see so much competition, that they would not be able to survive. Small organizations tend to allocate resources much better and much faster.

The Soviet Union is a poor example. The Soviet Union collapsed, which just means the states the Soviet Union had absorbed left. But the government remained intact.

8

Would this be avoided if the U.S. government collapsed

Who knows? One idea is to sell the assets to the highest bidder and to use the obtained funds to reimburse victims, probably starting with paying the estates of those who have been murdered.

9

I for one think they can keep it. If those cronies are incompetent they will be poor soon anyway, plus I prefer a bit too much focus on NAP in the present than a bit too little.

By the way, there are some people saying the FED via the investment banks is pushing down gold and especially silver prices. If COMEX indeed defaults, Austrians holding physical gold and silver will make an outsized return in a very short time.

Using the logic of crony wealth, those unlucky/stupid enough to buy ETFs could argue your savings were unjustly acquired.

In short, with all the gov’t intervention going on, it’s all one big can of worms. Best to leave it unopened and get on building ancap wealth and civilisation.

10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

Property distribution will tend toward an efficient outcome, regardless of the initial allocation of rights.

11

In an ideal world.

12

No. Use of capital will tend towards an efficient outcome if the relevant parties can make deals together. Initial distribution of property rights still matters to the players because it determines the strength of their bargaining position.

13

Show me the evidence consultant!

14

Sure. However, I believe “fair” bargaining power is more common than cases where freedom of contract ceases to be real or where transaction costs are prohibitive. Given a long enough timeline, I believe property will migrate to those owners who value the resources most. I would expect most, if not all, libertarians do.

15

Right but the Coase theorem doesn’t demonstrate this at all was my only point.

16

Sieben loves talking about Coase

Have you read/responded to some of the anti-Coase stuff on the site Seiben? i.e. Block on Coase

17

Show me the evidence consultant!

I don’t have evidence, just saying some people like Mike Maloney are seeing this in the market. It makes sense for the FED, which function is to boost confidence in the USD, to push down confidence in bullion.

The more general point was that almost all action today has gov’t interference someway or another, making it hard to know which property is “rightly” acquired. You’d have to guess all market prices at all different points in time, etcetera.