If the US Founders thought that limited government was the sustainable, then they have failed. Either all the federal programs today are constitutional or the Constitution is inefficient at limiting government. I charge that limited government is an impossible system given human nature.
You are not getting me. There are some people that are not influenced by profit maximization. Federalist 51 is exactly right. And yes, I hate government, but we cannot function in such an anarchial society because men are not angels, and they don’t always do what is good for themselves.
You act like no one would do business with these rich pepole. Why wouldn’t they, if it were in their own self interest? If all they were opposing was a select minority in which you are not a part of, then why would it not be in your best interest to sell them shoes, cars or clothes?
There are evil people in the world, that get pleasure not from profit but from pain of others. To act otherwise is foolish.
No, I got you, I just fail to see how the state is immune from such psychopaths taking control of it (many of them already do, since we’re speaking of evil men), and why this has any bearing on the market which is largely focused on profit. Minarchists seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance of sorts; you forget all the problems of socialized provision of a good when it comes to law and order, and your imagination goes right out the window. Granting evil men a monopoly over law and order seems to be what is insane to me.
-Jon
Interesting, but I think that something is missing. That is, that the government does not arise from free choice. Sure, some choose it, like James Madison and the guns behind his ideas. Some, however, like Joe the Farmer from Pennsylvania, have it foisted on them. I think that this alone invalidates the idea that the government arose on the “free” market, for there’s not much that’s free about having government imposed upon one without agreeing to the terms.
I would say that maybe the creators of the state valued liberty and knew that the smaller the government the better off people will be, but to say that the government was chosen by the people on the free market is an absurdity.
“If it was their client that was being persecuted, and the agency wished to retain its reputation for being efficient, I’d, um think so”
I’m not talking about the minority’s pda, I am talking about other PDA’s. Even if the minority’s pda was a reputible firm, they would not necessarily be able to fight off a bigger, stronger firm.
You have yet to answer me about what you would do about a Catholic PDA. What if they did not want to go to trial? You could try to force them, which would lead to a long and bloody battle which they may view to be unprofitable.
Surely this Catholic PDA would not be profitble. But that would not be the point. They may not care about profits. Some people care more about harming others and enforcing their world view than increasing profit.
Well, depending on what you mean by democracy, maybe.
As to mob rule, if that mob is made up of people who want to protect the property (and bodily) rights of all people to ensure a society of peace, then yes, it would be mob rule.
You do not even speak of who will properly define who owns what. You speak of impartial courts, but if I say something is mine and you say its yours what if I only will agree to go to courts that I know will agree with me. You would never want to go to any of those and the system wouldn’t work. Not every case would be cut and dry and these private law institutions are likely to infringe upon people’s rights as well. To argue that you have the perfect system is just arrogance. There is no perfect system, because men are not angels.
Your notion of how law would function on the market is simplistic. In all likelihood, an insurance firm would cater to a plenitude of individuals, rather than one firm catering to one minority, another to another minority etc., so what would prevail is an order of rather large, well-financed insurance agencies )whether for-profit, mutual aid or charities in nature) which rely on PDAs as enforcers and arbiters to smooth the operation of the law. So they would be one interested party in protecting their clients, minority or not (compare to the situation where a monopolist can simply deny protection and there is no competition for said minority to appeal to…) It would be in any firm’s financial interest to target as many consumers as possible, rather than rich minorities, for any number of reasons. Now, what if one state is smaller than another? Given the way you think, world government seems the obvious solution. Good luck keeping that minimal…
In addition to ostracizing it, yes.
To the point that it drives itself into destitution. Cool.
-Jon
So you have a PDA with near unlimited resources who make war on people they don’t like in an area apparently unpopular enough that people don’t revolt against them, eh? That reminds me of something. Isn’t there a government right now involved in something in Iraq? I think I remember hearing about that.
Right, and the possibility of agreeing on a third party to resolve the dispute which we find mutually agreeable is of course non-existent. Completely impossible. [^o)] No, rather we must have a third party foisted upon both individuals, whether they agree to it or not. Yeah, I see no potential for partiality here… You really need to give those books I mentioned a look.
Look, you’re the one arguing for a perfect system that violates the very laws of economics and enthrones the devils, let alone marginalizes them. I never said the system is perfect; nothing is ‘perfect’ - but compared to the State and most alternatives, it definitely is.
-Jon
Sure, maybe it will self-destruct. But people will always have their irrational views and their will always be new PDA’s to defend this irrational view. As long as religion exists, your system will fail. It would only take a few radicals with enough that do not care about profits to bring the whole system to its knees, ie nuclear winter.
In the absence of any state to generate hatred in them, or even provide a means by which to coerce others, and in the presence of agencies ready to stand to confront and deal with them, I do not see why. If anything, it is states that pose the biggest threat in such a scenario, as they have no regard for the costs of their action by their very nature. They do not rely on voluntary means to be financed, and deny their subjects the possibility of recourse to another provider of law and order.
-Jon
It is precisely because men are not angels that we cannot afford government!
Why would it be in their best interest to uphold the non-aggression principle and honor property rights?
- They would be under threat of physical violent from those they wronged and their supporters.
a. those supporters would be numerous since the destabilization of property rights would threaten everyone - the outlaw group would not be opposed only by a “select minority” but by the vast majority. Also, an outlaw firm could no longer hide behind the guns of the government.
- Their profits would be threatened.
a. conflict is costly. What’s in their best interest? Fight all the time, in court or the streets, and lose money? Or be nice and profit?
b. concerned people (like you and I) would refrain from doing business with them, not to mention the large boycott campaigns funded by concerned folk.
Add the problems of 1 & 2 and the very existence of an outlaw company could (and likely would) be threatened by being an outlaw. No rational business person would do that.
As to the irrational (the Catholics in your example), they would stand to lose as well for basically the same reasons - resistance. Resistance, again, not by a few, but by all who value property rights and peaceful existence.
In a perfect world it wouldn’t much matter what system is used would it?
Of course, in a perfect world, even communism would work
“As to the irrational (the Catholics in your example), they would stand to lose as well for basically the same reasons - resistance. Resistance, again, not by a few, but by all who value property rights and peaceful existence.”
They may stand to lose, but they may not care. People had alot to lose during the crusades, and they still went along with it.
Holy crap, government didn’t stop the crusades did it? The point isn’t that the system is perfect, as has been said multiple times by now, just better than what we have currently. Any individual PDA is going to have far less power than a government would, and therefore, if it becomes corrupt, is going to be able to do far less damage. Also, there are less incentives to actually become corrupt as a PDA rather than a government, making it better still.
You’re right, they might attack anyway. But they will lose. They will be killed if they go far enough. Fine, so be it. There will always be some idiots going around killing or robbing or whatever. The point is that these wackos will be an isolated group. They will have almost everyone against them. Hence, not only will they be physically outnumbered, but they will be financially outnumbered (no tax dollars either, remember).
So, this group of idiots gets killed. Good. It will serve as a warning to others.
Now compare that situation to the situation we have now (i.e. states with monopoly on force, huge amounts of tax money used for weapons, the warmongers don’t have to pay for the war they create, conscription). Which do you prefer?
I view it that we failed the system they established.
Or the constitution is efficient, but we have simply chosen not to follow it.
I agree. Human nature will eventually destroy any limited government (including anarchy). Revolutions are required from time to time.