Sorry Jargon if I made it sound as if you were warmonger, rather that state is war, if it is up to history. War is health of state, remember that!? 
So it is not like as it is a solution, it is in fact big part of a problem. Please read the book, it is actually a collection of answers to same or similar questions.
"When considering statist objections to anarchic solutions, the six questions below are most useful.
Does the government actually solve the problem in question?
People often say that government courts “solve” the problem of injustice. However, these courts can take many years to render a verdict – and cost the plaintiff and defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Government courts are also used to harass and intimidate, creating a “chilling effect” for unpopular opinions or groups. Thus I find it essential to question the embedded premises of statism:
- Do State armies actually defend citizens?
- Does State policing actually protect private property?
- Does State welfare actually solve the problem of poverty?
- Does the war on drugs actually solve the problem of addiction and crime?
- Do State prisons actually rehabilitate prisoners and reduce crime?
It can be very tempting to fall into the trap of thinking that the existing statist approach is actually a solution – but I try to avoid taking that for granted, since it is so rarely the case.
Can the criticism of the anarchic solution be equally applied to the statist solution?
One of the most common objections to a stateless society is the fear that a political monopoly could somehow emerge from a free market of competing justice agencies. In other words, anarchism is rejected because it contains the mere possibility of political monopoly. However, if political monopoly is such a terrible evil, then a statist society – which is founded on just such a political monopoly – must be rejected even more firmly, just as we would always choose the mere possibility of cancer over actually having cancer.
Is anarchy accepted as a core value in nonpolitical spheres?
In my last book, “Everyday Anarchy,” I pointed out the numerous spheres in society where anarchy is both valued and defended, such as dating, career choices, education and so on. If anarchy is dismissed as “bad” overall, then it also must be “bad” in these other spheres as well. Unless the person criticizing anarchy is willing to advocate for a Ministry of Dating, the value of anarchy in certain spheres must at least be recognized. Thus anarchy cannot be rejected as an overall negative – and its admitted value and productivity must at least be accepted as potentially valuable in other spheres as well.
Would the person advocating statism perform State functions himself?
Most of us recognize and accept the right to use violence in an extremity of self-defense. Those who support statism recognize that, in this realm, State police merely formalize a right that everyone already has, namely the right of self-defense. A policeman can use force to protect a citizen from being attacked, just as that citizen can use force himself. However, if someone argues that it is moral to use force to take money from people to pay for public schools, would he be willing to use this force himself? Would he be willing to go door to door with a gun to extract money for public schools? Would he be willing to extend this right to everyone in society? If not, then he has created two opposing ethical categories – the State police, to whom this use of violence is moral – and everyone else, to whom this use of violence is immoral. How can these opposing moral categories be justified?
Can something be both voluntary and coercive at the same time?
Everyone recognizes that an act cannot be both “rape” and “lovemaking” simultaneously. Rape requires force, because the victim is unwilling; lovemaking does not. Because no action can be both voluntary and coercive at the same time, statists cannot appeal to the principle of “voluntarism” when defending the violence of the State. Statists cannot say that we “agree” to be taxed, and then say that taxation must be coercive. If we agree to taxation, the coercion is unnecessary – if we do not agree to taxation, then we are coerced against our will.
Does political organization change human nature?
If people care enough about the poor to vote for state welfare programs, then they will care enough about the poor to fund private charities. If people care enough about the uneducated to vote for state schools, they will care enough to donate to private schools. Removing the State does not fundamentally alter human nature. The benevolence and wisdom that democracy relies on will not be magically transformed into cold selfishness the moment that the State ends. Statism relies on maturity and benevolence on the part of the voters, the politicians, and government workers. If this maturity and benevolence is not present, the State is a mere brutal tyranny, and must be abolished. If the majority of people are mature and benevolent – as I believe – then the State is an unnecessary overhead, and far too prone to violent injustices to be allowed to continue. In other words, people cannot be called “virtuous” only when it serves the statist argument, and then “selfish” when it does not.
There are a number of other principles, which are more specific to particular circumstances, but the six described above will show up repeatedly.
We will now take a quick tour through an overview of anarchism, and sketch in broad strokes the beginnings of our solutions to the horrors of worldwide violence."
No offense taken.It is indeed the health of the state. But it is also rarely the decision of the invaded when/if the foreigner invades
EDIT:
But I do take slightly more offense to you, in response to my points, quoting the preface from an Intro to Anarchy pamphlet as though I hadn’t heard the arguments.
False comparison. The medical industry must produce certain goods to treat illnesses because some people get cancer and some don’t. It’s not an on/off switch of everyone having cancer and everyone not having cancer. This, however, is the case in war
No it isn’t. Wars (conflict by any name) can be large or small.
Insurance companies will have to start buying all of these defense goods on the premise that people will subscribe to them. Likely it would only be a few companies given the enormous cost of providing defense. But why should person A pay for the insurance when person B is paying for it?
You answer your own question.
Assuming that these large companies have any allegiance whatsoever to the territory they are situated in. This would not be a protectionist economy. It would be a global economy. Thus it is subject to the buying and selling of shares by shareholders who live in democracies, many of which are extensions of those governing bodies.
So even though each person would hope or expect to gain from protection services purchased by their neighbors, they cannot count of their protection unless they are subscribers. Just as I enjoy using free versions of software. I can get some value for free, but I have to pay for the premium features. Similarly, I benefit from others who carry concealed weapons. But if I do get attacked, I will be even better off if I carry a weapon myself.
Just as unlikely as businesses sell their products above the market price. It happens sure, but the higgling of the market produces a stable outcome (draining funds of the aggressors).
Indeed. We agree.
The latter being a risk for both oneself and one’s neighbor, as the defense force is that much weaker.
What?
I read it but your rationale beforehand contradicts it.
Nonsense. I never said anything that would imply that one company would “take over”. I was illustrating how companies would compete to have the best weaponry. Just as all other businesses compete to provide the best services at the lowest cost.
And another point is that defense companies need only prepare for defense. They can buy defensive measures like anti-aircraft missiles far cheaper than the aggressor can buy airplanes. The same is true for land mines, sea mines, coastal guns, etc. All these defensive measures are much cheaper because they don’t have to travel across the world to be put into action. And since they are produced in a free market, they will be even more affordable than their statist counterparts. Add the difficulty and expense of foreign occupations and it will be very difficult for a state to conquer and hold a free market society.
And finally, these extremely expensive weapons already exist. If the state were to implode or wither away, there will be a local surplus of weaponry that can used for defense. And since it is already here, it is cheaper for it to remain here, rather than ship it to buyers around the world.
That’s not the point I’m making. The point I’m making is that, regardless of whether you have cancer right now, someone in your country does. People get cancer at different times. Their experiences overlap. Thus the medical industry must continually produce solutions. With a declaration of war, an entire nation suddenly goes from ‘at peace’ to ‘at war’. Ya dig?
Walk me through it.
**
That’s not my point. My point is that regardless of whether someone is a subscriber or not to a defense insurance company, that company, existing on the open market, is vulnerable to bribery, ownership and/or influence from states and their extensions. Meaning that insurance company may just bail out on you because the CEO is not dying for some idealistic historical experiment.
The less people give to insurance companies, the less weapons those companies can buy. Free riders weaken defense.
But services don’t compete in terms of weaponry which doesn’t cater to the function of the company as advertised.
Are land mines, artillery and 1st world guerillas enough to hold off tanks, battleships, aircraft carriers and special forces?
Because self-defence, i.e. the use of force in self-defence is legal, even today. And a minarchist state doesnt intervene in the economy/trade/distribution, i.e. a minarchist government doesnt regulate non-coerceive activities.
No, it isn`t, i.e. people have the right to use force to defend themselves from violence, even i todays society.
I don`t have a problem with the/a state, as long as it remains passive, when/if people do not initiate violence.
Youre asking if you can defend yourself, or hire someone to defend you? Cant you do that even in todays society?
Why would a minarchist government arrest you?
What should a minarchist government defend itself against?
Its an idea, a culture, i.e. that a minarchist government, i.e. a government/police force that only intervens after someone i society initiates viloence, its not a guarentee, just like a full blown anarchy ain`t no guarantee against violence.
That’s not the point I’m making. The point I’m making is that, regardless of whether you have cancer right now, someone in your country does. People get cancer at different times. Their experiences overlap. Thus the medical industry must continually produce solutions. With a declaration of war, an entire nation suddenly goes from ‘at peace’ to ‘at war’. Ya dig?
And defense agencies continually produce security. The mere existence of a weapon can be its function, as a deterrent. People purchase a detergent because the think that their life depends on it. Some people will take the extra risk to free ride, others will spend a little more to minimize their risk.
That’s not my point. My point is that regardless of whether someone is a subscriber or not to a defense insurance company, that company, existing on the open market, is vulnerable to bribery, ownership and/or influence from states and their extensions. Meaning that insurance company may just bail out on you because the CEO is not dying for some idealistic historical experiment.
The same is true any any defense entity, state operated or otherwise.
The less people give to insurance companies, the less weapons those companies can buy. Free riders weaken defense.
Don’t you see that there is feedback here? If only one person pays for defense, the whole rest of the country cannot possibly think that they can free ride on that small defense expenditure. So more people will buy in out of concern for their safety. And more people will buy in until all the people left free riding think that they are reasonably safe. And if the perceived threats diminish, more people will cancel their subscriptions. It is just like concealed carry. The more dangerous a city is, the more people will feel the need to carry. As the danger level drops, more people will leave their guns at home.
And statist solutions have free riders too, along with all the other problems that comes with statism. Like the inability to calculate.
But services don’t compete in terms of weaponry which doesn’t cater to the function of the company as advertised.
Ok. Defense companies are in the defense business. Defensive weapons are part of their function. You seem to think that defense companies won’t advertise the capability to defend your home from large attacks. You have no way of knowing that. If people demand defense, it will be sold to them. I assume people demand defense against large attacks. I guess you don’t share that assumption. But if people don’t demand defense, why would they use the guns of the state to steal wealth from their fellow citizens in order to buy it?
Are land mines, artillery and 1st world guerillas enough to hold off tanks, battleships, aircraft carriers and special forces?
I assume so, but I don’t really know. These companies will be run by people more expert than I. They will choose the weapons that they think are most cost effective. Some customers may like stealth bombers while others like small arms. These firms will take that into account.
Of course, force in self-defense is lets say moral. Minarchist government, state is still a monopoly of violence, because it has to collect taxes? Right? In order to even exists it has to collect taxes and if I don’t want to give them my money they will take it by force (which is robbery or extortion), even in most minimal states. How is it not initiation of force?
“I don`t have a problem with the/a state, as long as it remains passive, when/if people do not initiate violence.” - Is there any example of minimal states existing for any significant period of time and staying small!?
To me it’s not a question about if a state is beneficial, effecient, voluntary, and certainly not moral or not - it’s about action imperatives and how the consequences unfold by necessity, and what “spook” gets thrown in the machinary that doesn’t make any intelligible sense.
The politics, whether or not the state ought to be, etc, are the least important aspect of things - and are merely the last and most abstract look at a chain of consequence.
Does this make me an anarcho-capitalist, minarchist, or ultra conformist to whatever is in power? I have no clue, nor do I care.
Go back and read the thread. You’ve gotten off topic.
State defenses bear sole responsibility for defense. Thus it is nonsensical to try bribing one. To do so would be equivalent to offering vassalization. Their aims are not subject to entrepeneurial calculation.
Oh really? What if they can’t afford it (in the case that they have modeled their lifestyle around their income sans defense subscription, compared to the state-citizen with a lower standard of living but higher defense capability.)
You impute way too much to the average citizen. As if someone thinks that because there is a small risk of invasion 30 years in the future, they ought to pay an enormous cost until then, despite the fact that richer folks are already paying that.
I’m aware.
Why should they? It’s totally irrelevant to everyday life. Sure some people may pay to the outrageously more expensive agencies, but others will be aware of such payments and ask why they should pay.
Assuming that it is ‘the people’s voice’ which dictates confiscation of private wealth into defense.
Indeed
Lol, ok. Sounds like great inter-firm coordination.
What the hell does this mean?
Go back and read the thread. You’ve gotten off topic.
I responded directly to your assertion that defense is not a continually provided solution like cancer treatment is. Defense (security) is indeed continually produced and consumed. If my response is off-topic, so is your assertion since they both discussed the same things.
State defenses bear sole responsibility for defense. Thus it is nonsensical to try bribing one. To do so would be equivalent to offering vassalization. Their aims are not subject to entrepeneurial calculation.
Says who? The state does what it does. It even kills its own people at times. You cannot say what it will or won’t do.
Oh really? What if they can’t afford it
Then they will have no choice but to free ride and hope they get lucky, just as they would under a state.
You impute way too much to the average citizen. As if someone thinks that because there is a small risk of invasion 30 years in the future, they ought to pay an enormous cost until then, despite the fact that richer folks are already paying that.
This is a false choice. There is a risk of invasion every day. If we knew that the risk was 30 years off, we would save our money until then (and so would the rich people).
And which is it, is the risk small or large? If it is large, they should see that it has bearing on their lives. If it is small, maybe they should save their money.
I’m aware.
Then you should stop wasting your time using criticisms of the anarchic solution which can be equally applied to the statist solution. (zg7666)
Why should they? It’s totally irrelevant to everyday life.
Every day carries a risk of every possible danger. You cannot say that death is only relevant on the day you die. You must live everyday in such a way that you minimize your risks, or the day you die will be sooner rather than later. That is the whole point of insurance.
Sure some people may pay to the outrageously more expensive agencies, but others will be aware of such payments and ask why they should pay.
Right, people will buy what they value. If they value tanks, they will get tanks. If the don’t, they wont.
Assuming that it is ‘the people’s voice’ which dictates confiscation of private wealth into defense..
So the people will demand that they be taxed to pay for a service that the rich are “already paying for” and that the people themselves refuse to buy? Right…
What you meant to say is that the well connected members of the state will coerce the less connected members of the state into paying for their free stuff.
What the hell does this mean?
That I don’t understand politics, or how someone can be a “communist”, etc
If your assumptions are such that the entire society is “voluntary” and “free” and the state is whatever form of organized compulsion there might be, than it is impossible to conciliate both things. They are logically contradictory.
But no society is purely voluntary. People respect other choices insofar as it is to their own interest to do so.
So a state like apparatus can and will appear insofar a few people think there are still some gains to be made by bossing others around.
And of course these gains are not “net gains for the whole society”, whatever that means.
Politics do not happen because “society needs politics”.
Politics happen because politicians and similar creatures benefit from doing politics. “Whole society net gains”’ are only afterthoughts for real politics intentions, whose substance lacks any meaning and is practically pure rhetorics.
What if most people in society voluntarily choose minarchism, and therefore want to pay for it voluntarily(can minarchism be implemented/maintained in any other way)?
I see minarchism as the lesser evil, i.e. not perfect, and not a guarantee against changing into any-/everything else. Is there any example of an anarchy existing for any significant period of time and staying an anarchy!?
Classic bait and switch. We both know I wasn’t talking about peacetime defense. Please be more honest.
Because a state’s military cannot surrender itself without also surrendering its territory, which is untrue for a private agency which comprises a fraction of a defense force.
You impute way too much to the average citizen. As if someone thinks that because there is a small risk of invasion 30 years in the future, they ought to pay an enormous cost until then, despite the fact that richer folks are already paying that.
This is a false choice. There is a risk of invasion every day. If we knew that the risk was 30 years off, we would save our money until then (and so would the rich people).
And which is it, is the risk small or large? If it is large, they should see that it has bearing on their lives. If it is small, maybe they should save their money.
Ah. Excuse me. I was unaware that war, the sphere of involuntary exchange, was actually within commerce, the sphere of voluntary exchange, as opposed to being within its own sphere of action. I am also now enlightened to the fact that the calculation argument is the crux-question of whether defense ought to be centralized or decentralized. But of course the old military dictum ‘divide and conquer’ has absolutely no historical bearing on this matter and can be discarded…
Consider for a moment: how are insurance companies to decide on a rate which correctly anticipates a foreign declaration of war which appropriately equips the territory for war but also is not so cripplingly high that only the very wealthy pay it?
Ok, so you haven’t even been reading my posts. The implication of my snark was exactly identical with your ‘suggestion’ for me in the sentence above. Yes. A state military is an elitist institution, deciding what is best for others, possibly against their own will.
Please indulge us both with an elaboration.
Being a “libertarian”, and probably even an actual factual Marxist for that matter only makes sense to me if it just so happens to be a mere consequence on the way one interprets social facts; just in the way one is an Ohioan by consequence, etc. THere is no reason to reflect or care about such a minute consequence.
After that any actual action that is relevant in any political process to oneself is going to simply be “ultra utilitarian” (for lack of a better word at the moment) - it functions in the same sense as me buying a Mcburger from Mcdonalds, it wouldn’t filter, nor could it ever filter upwards into any Platonic / idealistic mentality.
Such a view to me seems to be self defeating, particularly if one takes an arch-liberal style sociological stance (such as anarcho-capitalism): as it woul seem to be just another “fixed idea” or subsidy that would oust the materialism, will to act, radical subjectivism, etc that, to me, are necessarily inherent to a liberal world view.
Classic bait and switch. We both know I wasn’t talking about peacetime defense. Please be more honest.
Please stop accusing me of dishonesty.
You are arguing that peacetime defense would be limited to free market police action. The only difference between that police action and national defense is scale. You have given no reason why this scaling up is not possible. You talk about free riders, but admit that the state has a free rider “problem” too. I assume you also see the same free rider issue in police action, but you have not claimed that police action is doomed because of it.
And your original example involves cancer insurance. Do you deny that insurance against hurricanes and earthquakes can function where large numbers of claims happen at the same time? And if earthquake coverage is viable, why not war coverage?
Because a state’s military cannot surrender itself without also surrendering its territory, which is untrue for a private agency which comprises a fraction of a defense force.
The issue of “territory” is irrelevant. People demand defense of property and self. A state can easily kill its people and confiscate their wealth while maintaining some ‘territorial defense’. Or it can allow its people to be pillaged without protection. History has many such examples.
As to the pic:
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. I don’t deny free riding. It is actually a good thing. It provides basic utility to the poor without the transaction costs of charity.
Ah. Excuse me. I was unaware that war, the sphere of involuntary exchange, was actually within commerce, the sphere of voluntary exchange, as opposed to being within its own sphere of action.
…? I don’t think I said that war was voluntary exchange. It looks to me like you just don’t want to engage in my argument.
I am also now enlightened to the fact that the calculation argument is the crux-question of whether defense ought to be centralized or decentralized. But of course the old military dictum ‘divide and conquer’ has absolutely no historical bearing on this matter and can be discarded…
You have failed to show one single failing of private defense that cannot also be applied to state defense. But when I show a failing of state defense that does not apply to private defense, you wave it off. Well I guess I will just tally that “1” and move on.
For one, the question of centralization is a false choice. State defense is not inherently more centralized than private defense. A state can employ militia, and private firms can contract whatever organization they prefer.
Two, you imply that decentralization (division) is a bad thing. But states are divided too. There are 50 state-level militaries in the US, in addition to the national one. And they don’t see the benefits of this division (eg innovation) that private firms do because they don’t compete to attract customers. Private firms are also subject to market forces, therefore they have more incentive to approach ideal firm sizes than a state does.
But I guess that is your point to an extent. You think that only the state is able to grow larger than its ideal firm size, and so only it can handle national defense. You ignore the inefficiency of overgrowing ideal firm size. In the sort term, being too large might be good if market conditions change in favor of your larger size (ie an unexpected war). But in the long run, this inefficiency propagates and defensive capability shrinks in relative terms. And if an unexpected war never comes, the state wasted its valuable resources, killing people by reducing their wealth (rather than through warfare). Either way, people will die before they might otherwise. The question is how to maximize life. Economic calculation is the only way to answer the question of how to employ scarce resources.
Consider for a moment: how are insurance companies to decide on a rate which correctly anticipates a foreign declaration of war which appropriately equips the territory for war but also is not so cripplingly high that only the very wealthy pay it?
Of the 15 largest military spenders, 13 countries spend less than 4% of GDP on defense. The world average is 2.5%.
I think most people would be willing to pay around 1-4% of their income to prevent foreign invasion, especially if they have a choice in the service they buy. We are talking about $300-1200 on a yearly income of $30,000. I wouldn’t call that crippling.
Yes. A state military is an elitist institution, deciding what is best for others, possibly against their own will.
Close, but there is no reason to ascribe altruism to the state (or to people in general). People act only to enrich themselves (in this case through coercion or force). The agents of the state do not “decide what is best for others”, only what is best for themselves.