I’ve recognized that a lot of you consider yourselves anarchists, particularly anarcho-capitalists or market anarchists. Anarchy, by definition, means “without government.” But what exactly is government? To govern is, in my opinion, best defined as “to control the actions or behavior of” by the American Heritage Dictionary. The suffix -ment means a condition or result. Therefore . . .
Government-n.-The condition or result of controlled actions or behavior.
So the assumption that “government is force” is correct. But this doesn’t necessarily have to be a centrally planned force, does it? Without government, couldn’t there be an easy opportunity for a loosely-banded “gang rule” causing destruction of life, liberty and property when no one’s looking, without established penalties of prison? Regardless of the lack of established justice, isn’t the state of gang rule itself a contradiction of anarchy?
So comment if you want on my observations, which have probably come up numerous times in various forms. But I suppose my real question is: Is anarchy sustainable?
I’ve often heard the argument that a libertarian society requires people to be perfect beings, and to me this is ridiculous. But in regards to anarchy, I can understand these speculations. Anarchy, in my mind, can’t exist unless everyone is perfect. People are completely capable of controlling others. That’s why I lean toward the minarchist-type government, commonly called a “Night Watchman” state. That doesn’t make me a statist. I just don’t think a stateless society is possible, so the best option is a minimal state, limited by maximum individual rights.
We usually define government as a territorial monopolist. More generally, anarcho capitalists oppose aggression: both wandering and stationary bandits.
We support security and protection funded non-aggressively. Usually voluntarily through the market, since economic logic informs us that a demand for security incentivizes firms to produce it.
Usually people are afraid that private security agencies would become a de facto state. Roderick long has an excellent rebuttal to several objections to anarcho capitalism.
If people are perfect, then any system works. A monarchy works (sort of) because you’re gauranteed he’s not a douche. But the whole reason we advocate the free market is because it works even if people are greedy and evil. In the same way that we oppose central planning of shoes, we use the same arguments to oppose government control of security.
The basic problem with all political institutions is that one group is judge in its own case. In a monarchy, the king judges himself. In a democracy, we rely upon the majority to police themselves. Obviously it is within the interest of these groups to rule in their own favor, leading to an expansion of their own political power.
Moreover, even if you could check or freeze a minarchist government, we still oppose it because of the misesian calculation and hayekian knowledge problem. Its simply more efficient to let a price system, reflecting consumer demand and real world scarcity, determine optimal capital structures.
I’ve been in a lot of contemplation about anarco capitalism(AC) and have one question that I hope to get answered. Assuming that AC is effective at curbing violence in society to levels whereby it becomes inconsequential to have security and demand for use of the security force begins to diminish significantly in the newly safe environment. What could possibly result from this scenario? I have my own ideas, but I want to hear someone in favor of anarcho capitalism explain first.
The same thing that happens when demand for a certain good decreases. Capital structures adjust to the new prices. But speculators and forecasters have an impact on price too, and keep capital structures looking towards the long term. So its not like we’re going to eradicate crime, then throw away all our guns, and watch crime explode again. Not sure if thats what you were worried about…
However, if there is little crime in the area and profits cease to be made, won’t their be cuts in the security forces (like personelle etc.) thus weakening the security forces ability to ward off criminals in the area who might wish to plunder the citizens.. I’m not saying there would cease to be guns but thier may not be enough guns to counter an invading force.
If the people are plundered, they will no longer be able to afford the private security force and thus the profits for keeping one in the area will be nill so the security force may decide to opt out of the area.
It’s not easy to predict the market. I don’t feel very confident trying to predict the market in specific scenarios like this. There are so many things that you could’ve not unaccounted for.
I will say is that I don’t think that people are going to just allow themselves to be enslaved easily once they’re free.
You’re basically worried about a shortage of security. But shortages are averted by speculators, making investments and bidding up current prices.
So this is exactly analogous to say, the current oil market. It is possible that prices for oil could go so low that people might be led to overconsume oil, leading to a shortage in the event of some unforseen disaster. Then, unable to drive their cars to get to work, people might not be able to produce oil anymore and civilization would crumble.
You can see there are a lot of checks against this scenario, again, through speculation and the like.
I’m just trying to look at things from the plunder’s perspective and how to maximize profit for myself. I am sorry for asking so much, I just want to know how plunder’s are going to be countered in an evironment where profit will be the primary motive of protection by an organization.
Now let me take a deeper look into your idea of speculation. Speculation is about moving resources to areas where profits are to be maximized. However, (and correct me if I am wrong), for the security firm, it would appear that speculation would be used to prevent losses, not so much as gain profits. After all, their would most likely be less demand for a security company that failed to protect its cilents.
Seeing how reasources are limited, as a leader of theives I would use the information by market speculators to actually help me in staging attacks. Here’s how I would do it. I attack a small town with little protection. Once that town is attacked, all the nearby towns will feel threatened and I would let the market do its thing. Money and reasources would then begin to move to those towns from other towns. So naturally I would then determine not to attack the newly protected towns and make a move on towns where resources are moved from. So in the end, speculation may in fact help me in my endeavors and will also cost more to society since I will Purposely create a malinvestment problem.
And now that I mentioned this diabolical plan another issue is brought to mind. The problem I see with using the market for protection is that the market depends on success. In issues dealing with security, such as war, success is often times uncertain and therefore soldiers may need to be paid, even when failures occur so that troops can be moved where they are needed not where they are profitable.
Once again, sorry for the troublesome inquiry. I am new to the concept of anarcho capitalism and just want some of this explained by me to people with more experience in the topic.
Why attack the town? Just to scare everyone? What exactly was the point of attacking them? Don’t you think that the people in the area are going to come after you and your gang?
Why would some towns be left weaker after you attacked the first town? How would you even know what towns would be weaker?
As for your last bit on war, I don’t really see a problem there. If they (the security company) really were hurting for dollars, wouldn’t they just raise their prices? Also, this wouldn’t be an offensive war, right? We’d be talking about defense of private property, so I don’t think you’d have problem getting the population to support you and even take an increase in price.
Speculation would be like, “okay, just b.c. there’s no gangs today doesn’t mean there won’t be tomorrow”. So futures indices for security goods would show high prices, the same way oil futures are bid up.
Its going to be more efficient to go out and get you than try to predict what you’re going to do next. Its in the interest of society to round up killers.
You’re basically saying that since the market is short-term oriented, the long term goes to crap. From the behaviour of other markets, such as oil, this does not appear to be the case. We always hear about government shortages of X, not free market shortages. X can be shoes, or security.
Loans. Insurance. The oil/gas market also ‘depends upon success’, and profitability is not always certain, with high up front cost and 3-10 years to pay off an investment. Still rolls well because the most successful entrepreneurs in the long run are interested in the long run.
Thanks for being genuinely interested about it. I don’t sense any ulterior motives.
I thank you sieben for understanding that it is more important for me to know than for me to be right.
Now back to our discussion. Your claim that it would be better for society for you to attack me and round me up before I can go ahead and attack the next town, granted you are correct, but as a company you would still need to ensure the safety of your clients and often times these don’t mix.
But however, I have come to the conclusion on my own based on your idea that by catching me, you can restore your good name to the masses and an insurance policy can be offered by the company if it fails to protect its clients so now I can say that I am moving closer to anarcho capitalism than I was prior to our conversation.
The other problem I have is what would happen if a security firm were to either go rouge or stage events to obtain greater profit, but I will leave that to the article you posted to analyze. If I have anymore concerns I will ask. Thank you for the conversation it was very enlightening.
Why attack a town, to plunder it of course. I am creating my own socialist government j/k Also, the only thing my gang would be afraid of is the security company b/c after plundering the town I would have stripped them of their belongings. They would be too busy repairing their lost property to deal with me as their survival would depend on it. (I would be an evil plunderer haha)
If the prices rise that will only be to my advantage since I will be draining resources from the people and thus be able widdle away at their ability to obtain help from a security company. I can know which town is weaker based on how resources are moved from one town to another. A convienent way to do this is see what are the prices for security in various towns. They will be higher where they are most demanded and lower where they are least demanded. Once the prices are leveled out and show some consitancy, I can tell where troops were moved from to where they are moved to since naturally the company will want to move its reasources to a place they will obtain the most profit. However, this problem was solved by another poster as mentioned that it would be better if the security company caught me. I later speculated that it would also restore the confidence in the company to do so and therefore it is neccissary that the company accomplish this task (something that the governement does not have to be concerned over).
My primary fear is that a Fabian strategy would be set up by security companies because they would be too afraid to leave their towns unprotected, but my earlier post and with the help of seiben I determined that my concerns were false. A security company can act like Scipio to its own benefit. (In fact it was this historical event that sparked my thoughts on this subject in the first place).
So, the free rider problem presents itself here… Its in the best interests of ‘everyone’ to go out and catch aggressors, but no individual wants to shoulder the cost, because he’d rather have someone else pay for it. Everyone trys to be a free rider and it never gets done…
There are remarkebly few examples of the free rider problem in free markets. What happens is that individuals transfer their liabilities to someone else via insurance. So if I live in a city, instead of hiring security to go catch random muggers who will probably never threaten me, I can buy an insurance policy that covers me if i’m mugged.
Now the insurance firm loses money if I get mugged because they have to pay out. So its in their interests to round up muggers who might threaten their customers. If for some reason, there are a bunch of insurance firms and they start free-riding off eachother, one firm can just offer to buy up all the liabilities of the others since it would be able to reduce liabilities further in a non-free rider environment. Or, if its only like 5-6, it would be pretty easy to sign a Dominant Assurance Contract, that only goes thru if everyone signs onto it.
The long and short of it is, if it is profitable to do something, we can figure out a way to do it.
This is also true.
Yeah the article brings up the relevant points on this issue.
I’ll buttress it by saying that people don’t sign unenforcable contracts. If an agency somehow had the power to “go rogue” and start killing people, there could be no accountability with this agency and its contract would be unenforceable. People wouldn’t sign it and they’d go broke. If the market ever needed such large scale defense that a monolithic defense agency were needed, the firms bidding for the contract with insurance companies would not only compete on price, but on accountability. So maybe one firm offers to have a bomb implanted in the heads of all its CEOs, and if the customers 3/4 majority vote on it, it will kill the CEOs if they go rogue or something.
Its a silly example but its the most obvious one I can think of
Good luck plundering them into the stone age and then avoiding the security companies of the area. That sort of destruction is usually perpetrated by the state.
Power (force) is not a good/service that is subject to market forces. It’s simply more powerful then them (pun intended).
Unlike all other goods/services…
Theoretically: The more power (force) its provider has, the higher the price the customer pays. It’s quite a peculiar “good/service” that way: A higher “supply” of something resulting in a higher price to the consumer – quite unlike the shoes market.
Empirically: Power (force) markets seem to unavoidably converge into territorial monopolies. There is no evidence of a free (non-monopolist) market in power (force) while there are plenty of examples of free markets in all other goods/services through history and across mankind.
If the power is never used in this way, it is exactly like the shoe market. It will never be used in this way because a bully on the market will generate a demand for protection from that bully, leading the rogue PDA to incur astronomical costs of dealing with all the other PDAs, as well as fighting to hold on to their consumers. Non-aggression pays.
All modern governments are residual from agricultural days, where anarchists admit mankind was especially open to predation. Now, with the ability to communicate and therefore contract within seconds. There is simply no history or empirical precedent for or against the sustainability of modern anarchism.
I can see your argument with the insurance firm. I see the security agency kinda like being an insurance company and really the idea of the free rider is not a problem for me. I say this because if there is an invasion by some outside force, it is in the interest of the company to protect the whole town (or even a band of companies if the situation calls for it)
Why? Because if the town were attacked, it would take too long to discern who is a client and who isn’t during an operation to repulse the enemy so the company would have to protect the interest of all the people (whether it is their client or not). Companies would also have to band together, ignoring who’s property is to be protected by whom since the whole of the commons needs protecting to ensure that their clients property is protected .A privatized fire agency would work the same way in case of a fire (even a small one which needs to be stopped before it spreads and damages their clients property).
The only difference is that the free rider may be billed or just won’t have any insurance claim to make on the damages done by invasion or fire.
This has been really helpful for me discussing this.
still a few more kinks i need to work out before i call myself an anarcho capitalist (i am very picky with calling myself anything at this point). This has been a great foundation for me to start from. thanx
Its I think the number one objection to market defense. I’d just like to stress that insurance is only one way of dealing with the problem, and that security firms may themselves offer insurance policies, or insurance companies could exist independently and instead contract with defense firms. Its all up to the market..
There are strong economic reasons to be non-aggressive. I mean ideally they would follow libertarian law and I think they will. Maybe people would still attack peaceful pedophiles, but it costs money to go out and do this. And its likely that this wouldn’t even happen anyway because people can defend themselves. The PDA that goes guns blazing every 10 seconds is going to cost a lot more than a PDA who arbitrates with others.
If I ever get off my lazy @$$ I’m supposed to be writing an essay about the economics of slavery, which would be relevant to this conversation because the whole idea of attacking other people is to expropriate them. i.e. enslave them.
OR, as the company (men paid to wield guns for profit) calculates that the potential losses of fighting a stronger force (and the potential destruction of its current client base) are a far inferior alternative vs. staying alive and being paid by a more reliable source, a “merger & acquisition” (or surrender, some would say) may not be a bad idea. The impending ostracism by their former clients would be alleviated by the newly merged PDA offering everyone deals they can’t refuse. Thus a new territorial power (force) monopoly is established and everyone is happy – that is, until a new, more powerful force walks in and…
