The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

Economics Political Theory
61

What I did was not dishonest nor false. I will explain my methodology so that it is clear, though it should have been clear to anyone who read my post. The term “anarchist” for a very long time was a synonym for “communist”. This is one of the reasons that Murray Rothbard initially did not call himself an anarchist but a “nonarchist”. I will provide the link to his article “Are Libertarians ‘Anarchists’?” again. Indeed, this was written during the 1950’s, so that should give you a timeframe for when the term “anarchist” was still not yet used for “anarcho-capitalism”.

So, since you kept insisting that Mises spoke out against anarcho-capitalism, I decided to show you what those quotes really said. I replaced the term “anarchist” with the term “communist”. After all, if Mises used them as synonyms (which at the time they were), then it would show you the meaning of his statements.

I will provide you with another example that is not in politics so that you can see the neutrality of what I did. Here is a passge from Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain:

The term “gay” used to mean “happy” or “joyful”. Let’s look at the passage again:

Currently, however, “gay” is used to mean “homosexual”. Let’s look at the passage again:

You were reading Mises’ quotes with the modern definition of “anarchy”, but during Mises’ day the term was used to mean something else. All I did was demonstrate this fact. However, if you still dispute this, then the burden of proof is upon you to prove that I am wrong. I provided my evidence already as to why I think I am reading his quotes correctly. I may be wrong, but you have yet to offer any proof.

The speech by Roderick Long addresses your questions about war, and I feel he answers it better than I can. If you still have these same questions after you read it, feel free to ask again.

**_

Interesting that you would say this. I was under the impression from your original question that you were talking about within anarcho-capitalist societies. My mistake. I see no reason why an anarcho-capitalist society should never fight despotic regimes. After all, the military doing the fighting would be doing so voluntarily without using stolen funds or slave soldiers. I don’t see anything in this particular scenario that conflicts with libertarian theory.

62

I disagree with your disagreement, Sir. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress, which in many cases are indispensable to the operations of any government. Because Congress and its 535 members could not possibly handle all of these functions themselves, they delegated them to bureaucratic agencies. But perhaps you could devise a means of handing these functions over to the private sector without chaos ensuing. – DarylloydDavis

Lets take a look at how these responsibilities are being managed by government that private industry would be far better suited to perform:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; – this is an abject failure since government borrows money recklessly to fund politically motivated activities at the expense of economic realities thereby bankrupting the nation to the tune of over $100 trillion in unfunded debt.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes – abject failure since government engages in protectionist policies to protect inefficient, greedy, corrupt politically connected firms from foreign competition.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; abject failure since government prints money to fund enterprises and policies that otherwise would be rejected by the citizenry. INdeed, this responsibilty of government creates unstable cyclical markets and inflationary pressures on the most vulnerable in society

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; – abject failure since government is the biggest most dangerous conterfeiter of currency. Indeed, they print and distribute ‘counterfeit’ notes to their friends in the banking industry in a quid pro quo schemes of pre-inflationary dollars for political bribes.

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads – laughable like most other endeavors government claims to perform for the benefit of the citizenry

This is due to their having to seek eventual re-election–to their fearing for their jobs at the hands of voters. And yet I have added even more fear to the lives of appointed bureaucrats; as they may now be voted out of their jobs every year, along with elected politicians. – DLD

My point is that all of this would be irrelevent if power was turned over to the citizenry in a voluntary and competitive free market. What I seek to achieve is to make government irrelevent in the economic arena by dramatically reducing the power of government to tax and regulate the economy. Hence, firms and individuals would no longer waste resources lobbying politicians who had no power – instead they would be forced to satisfy consumer preferences with increased productivity, quality, lower prices, et al.

It does very little more efficiently. But some things it does because the private market, with its private interests, would have no incentive to be fair to all–like investigating other businesses’ safety standards. Then there’s the military, law enforcement, infrastructure, etc. – DLD

"Fair’ is a subjective value judgment – it has nothing to do with economic reality. The only responsibility of a private sector firm is to make a profit. Indeed, many well intentioned actors seek to integrate their pet version of what is ‘fair’ into the marketplace thereby creating moral hazard that actually destroys societal wealth and dynamism.

You must remember that government is self-serving. It is a market for corrupt, inefficient, greedy and uncompetitive firms and special interest go to lobbying for favors that they couldn’t get in a free and voluntary market. Nothing ‘fair’ ever results from government intervention unless your bribe is the highest or your voting constituency is the most reliable irrespective of whether the policies that benefit these politically connected special interests actually benefit society as a whole.

since the Fed was created, the value of the dollar has declined 96%, thousands of banks have failed, and we have had scores of severe cylical downturns – all specific problems that this entity was created to address and correct!

since we have had a dept. of education, the costs per pupil have skyrocketed and outcomes have flatlined --all specific problems that this entity was created to address and correct!

Since we have had a dept. of energy, our dependence on foreign energy has spiked and energy costs have increased despite the discovery of vast reserves of domestic energy – all specific problems that this entity was created to address and correct!

the list goes on and on – indeed, I think I challenged you to name a federal department, agency or bureau that accomplished the task it was created to address and close up shop a success – and predictably you have not answered this challenge

And I believe you previously criticized a provision of mine for effectively ending most regulation by making regulators liable for their decisions. – DLD

the free market has a mechanism for punishing inefficient regulators for bad decisions – it is called bankruptcy. Moreover, consumers who are disappointed with government must endure this pain forever without a choice since government is a monopoly. IN contrast, consumers (regulators) in the free market can immediately punish unresponsive firms by never again patronizing them – hence they go out of business in short order if their transgressions are not isolated.

Indeed, within the free market everyone is 100% satisfied by their ‘votes’ otherwise they would not be voting (purchasing goods and services) – in contrast, politicians or bureaucrats are always the lesser of two or more evils and we only get to vote once every few years at the most.

In a direct democracy, where the People make the laws, lobbyists must convince them, not politicians, that this or that law must be passed. How do they bribe the voters? --DLD

What if the bottom 75% vote to plunder the wealth of the top 25% of income earners ? What provisions within your direct democracy prevent this from happening ?

Hence the bottom 75% have far greater voting power, nothing can stop them until society runs out of other people’s money.

Remember the flipside of giving a Treasury Secretary unique responsibility for government regulation of the money supply is that if the right one gets in there–like a Ron Paul–then he has the power to single-handedly make major changes in the system, shrinking it, reforming it, etc.-- DLD

and the flip side is that what if someone assumes power who is corrupt, inefficient, incompetent, et al ?

At some point you have to roll the dice. – DLD

In the free market, I dont have to roll the dice if I dont want to. INdeed, I can get what I want, when I want it, 100% of the time. If a favored vendor lets me down, I have several options – go somewhere else or open my own firm to fill the void.

But a treasury department is necessary, if funding government is necessary. And right now we’re all losing our shirt – DLD

The military would be given a budget based on GDP. INdeed, the greater the growth in GDP, the more wealth the nation retains and hence the greater the need to expand the defense since the country would be richer. IN contrast, a decline in GDP would represent a loss of value and hence less of a need to fund defense.

No dept or treasury is needed as a middle man to dispense funds.

Also, if these cabinet positions were responsible for reallocating vast sums of tax and regulatory favors – wouldnt that increase the incentives to bribe them ?

63

@got lucky

For the 3rd time, I provided more than one quote for you to bastardize, including several in which Mises was supportive of government. Hence, you took one quote, bastardized it by cutting and pasting than anarchist version, and conveniently ignored the rest of the quotes I cited.

In addition, you engaged in the incredibly fallacious argument that Mises is about as close to being an anarchist as you can get without being an anarchist ??!!!

Similarly, a warm corpse is about as close to being alive as you can get without being alive. Yet no rational, independent thinking, or objective source would consider one an anarchist and the other living.

With respect to Long – he is equally clueless.

Indeed, this anarchist concedes that cartels of armed force would form within ancap society, yet he makes the ridiculous claim that these cartels would be unstable because they are coercive.

This is absurd because every single nation-state in history has gained and maintained power by coercive monopoly and most have survived for decades, and some for centuries, without serious challenge.

Indeed, if Long’s illogical arguments were true than every single despotic regime today would collapse from market forces – yet we all know this rarely occurs and when it does it requires great societal inertia and costs to achieve. Moreover, when government collapses and anarchism results, it always degenerates into a statist regime.

In summation, anarchism fails because it will be violent based on the logical arguments I have submitted in previous posts, and this violence will lead to cooperation among competing cartels (or constant fighting – pick your poison) that will lead to a hegemon cartel of armed force.

Once this occurs, all bets are off – unless you discount the adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely – if you do discount this truth, then this contradiction would imply sound government is possible, which is a fundamental refutation of anarchist dogma.

64

Removing those powers from the federal government would make your much-vaunted military force much more inefficient, which goes expressly against your goal of a “nimble” military force for the US. The government would have less power to obtain things for the military.

The government and the military are part of the economic arena. The economic arena isn’t separate from these organizations/institutions.

If there’s an imputed monopoly over legitimate coercion (i.e. a government), then people will “waste” (i.e. spend) resources pushing their agendas to those who operate this monopoly, if the former see an economic advantage likely arising from doing so.

So you already understand that the government is part of the economic arena? By that, I don’t mean a free and voluntary market - I just mean the “realm” of economic behavior (which is really just the “realm” of human action).

Who do you think would (or should) be in charge of setting the military’s budget, as a percentage of GDP? Or would the ratio be part of constitutional law?

If there’s no treasury department, then presumably the military has its own treasury with which it distributes funds internally. Would you require it to directly tax people as well?

65

@ DaryllyodDavis

The following is your Constitution – however you have not provided any data on how much revenue your government requires and how much revenue each of the following rents, royalties, fees and taxes would net:

Amendment X – No law enacted by electoral initiative or otherwise shall establish a debt, project or fiscal program where the financing thereof would obligate future citizens to the financial commitments of current voters. Appropriations shall be drawn from revenues collected within one year of their appropriation through floating debt and the collection of these fees and revenues only:

Usage fees levied upon persons whose activities degrade or monopolize public property;
Usage fees levied upon persons enjoying exclusive use of land, in proportion to its acreage and the volume, mass and scarcity of natural resources therein;
Usage fees levied upon foreign governments for involvement of United States military personnel, equipment or weaponry in operations outside the territory of the United States, at the request of said governments, which would otherwise be the responsibility of any sovereign nation to itself;
Misusage fees levied upon persons whose activities, whether intentional or negligent, damage public property;
Misusage fees levied upon persons whose activities damage the private property of another person, or impede its exclusive use by barring lawful access to it, or operation of it; physically altering it or its value; or otherwise converting or making improbable its peaceable, lawful, exclusive enjoyment; thereby necessitating the intervention of law enforcement or courts of law;
Misusage fees levied upon persons who assume unnecessary risks or file frivolous complaints that require emergency public services or courts of law;
Sales of forfeited, seized property;
Sales of goods processed or manufactured by state-confined workers; or revenues from the contracting-out of their services;
Sales of government property to allies of the United States, upon a two-thirds majority vote among the Governors and a unanimous vote between the President and the Cabinet—or the Defense Cabinet, in the case of military property;
Duties, imposts and excises;
Safety-inspection and handling charges;
Any fiscal-program income deduction annually re-authorized by electoral initiative.
All fees shall reflect the actual duration and costs of use or misuse, so that collections in anticipation of use may necessitate reimbursement.
No law enacted by precinct electoral initiative shall institute or increase an appropriation from revenues derived in part or in full from another precinct, unless with a fifty-one percent consenting vote within the latter precinct, or unless authorized by this Constitution; nor withhold or disburse revenues lawfully collected for and due to a city, county or state government, or the federal government.

In contrast, I cited a 10% Federal levy on each state government based on the state’s GDP. This would be more than enough to fund national defense, interstate law, and arbitration between the states.

Your formula for central governance is vague and not supported by specific data that shows how much money you expect to acquire and how much money you need to fund your bureaucracy.

Presumably, you have calculated a rough draft these revenues and expenditures.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, you have provided no explaination on how the bureaucrats that act as arbitrators for your many usage fees would be deterred from corruption and bribery. Indeed, with tremendous sources of money changing hands, do you discount the possibility of massive fraud and poltiical patronage ?

Thanks in advance.

66

How’s your blood pressure. It seems your brain might be hurting you too. I explained my methodology, and you have yet to attack my methodology. Well, technically you called it bastardized, but insulting without logical refutation really doesn’t do much to help your case.

The burdon of proof rests with you at the moment. I have provided my case as to why I believe it is a mistake to read how Mises uses “anarchist” as “anarcho-capitalist”. I demonstrated that at the time “anarchist” was a term used to refer to “communists”. Providing more quotes using the terms involved does not a refutation make. What you need to do is provide sources where Mises either is specifically talking about “anarcho-capitalism” or where you can show that “anarchist” does not actually refer to “communist”.

That is the kind of proof you need. I noticed how you ignored my Mark Twain example and have fallen back onto this corpse nonsense. Show me how my Mark Twain example is not accurate.

Until you show proof that I am mistaken about the term “anarchist” during that time period (or in how Mises actually used it), I will not engage you further in this particular point.

It is not an argument. It is a statement. I provided my reasoning before, but I will summarize it once more:

Mises supported unlimited secession.

So, while technically he is not an anarchist, the belief that people should be able to leave their government at any time is pretty damn close to anarchism. Hence the statement: Mises was about as close to being an anarchist without actually being one.

However, your entire refutation so far has rested on his use of the word “anarchist”. I have responded to this above. So, you need to respond to the above before you can begin to call my statement fallacious.

Until you have done so, I will not engage you further on this point.

It is you who is clueless. You did not address any of his points, and even more impressive, you fail to address his most important at all! War is expensive. These PDAs do not have the tax base that a monopolist government has. It is extremely unlikely that a PDA would be able to secure the funds (peacefully and legally) required to make war against other PDAs.

You did not address this point.

I won’t hold my breath.

67

Then it should be no problem for you to explicitly show exactly how he bastardized the quotes you provided - instead of just asserting that he did.

You’re actually supporting (if not proving) GotLucky’s point. He wasn’t arguing that Mises was an anarchist - he was arguing that Mises was as close as one can come to an anarchist without actually being one. Indeed, a warm corpse is about as close to being alive as one can get without being alive. The analogy holds.

Every single nation-state in history has gained and maintained monopoly power over coercion because the vast majority of its members approved of this. That doesn’t mean everyone in that vast majority approved of everything “his” nation-state did with that monopoly, but he still approved of the principle itself.

Relying purely on force seems to typically breed resentment and resistance. Take a look at gangs - how much approval do they have from people who aren’t themselves gang members? Governments are just gangs that most people approve of.

68

There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil … Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. –Mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists… Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.– Mises, Omnipotent Government

Based on these quotes – by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure – Mises is a defender of government, albeit government in a limited roll.

Of course, I enjoy a good laugh – hence I eagerly await your cut and paste rationalizations of the above quotes.

Moreover, supporting secession doesn’t mean someone is an anarchist – indeed, this is another ridiculous strawman argument.

Hence…

Support for unlimited secession doesn’t make one an anarchist, duh.

Indeed, I would bet the the majority of anarcho-capitalists on Mises.org understood that Mises was NOT an anarchist even if you don’t.

Why don’t you start a thread and ask the anarchists on this site if Mises was an anarchist.

Checkmate.

These PDAs do not have the tax base that a monopolist government has. It is extremely unlikely that a PDA would be able to secure the funds (peacefully and legally) required to make war against other PDAs. – golucky

Amusingly, you have just parroted a fallacy frequently issued by brain dead statists. Namely, that government is the only entity that can fund large scale enterprises. Of course, your assertion is absurd and most of the knowledgeable anarchists on Mises.org recognize this fact. Indeed, there is no logical, empirical, or factual argument that says free market enterprises like a private military agency cannot grow as large as a statist military.

Do you make this nonsense up as you go, and if not, where is your source that says private enterprise is limited in the size it can grow ?

69

Centinel

you have not provided any data on how much revenue your government requires and how much revenue each of the following rents, royalties, fees and taxes would net

I’m afraid I’m not succeeding well at explaining the concept. I can’t project in advance many of the revenue amounts, because they are entirely dependent upon the level of use of government services: If the military isn’t drawn into conflict, for example, at the request of another government, then it will receive less revenue, but it will also require less revenue. The underlying idea is to discourage government intervention altogether, and to shrink government, as people come to covet the freedom to keep their own money, by handling their own problems, without the services of government–as they newly appreciate the direct relationship between a need for its intervention and the unwelcome financial requirements of larger government.

But the linchpin of this system of government financing is the following provision:

All fees shall reflect the actual duration and costs of use or misuse

No matter what government service is required, government is authorized to collect in exact proportion to the actual cost of providing the service–directly from those who make government intervention necessary. There can be no revenue shortfall, by definition. As an example:

  1. A citizen gets stuck on the side of a mountain, climbing without appropriate gear: now he must pay for the emergency services, not taxpayers. (Personal accountability)

  2. A woman sues a firm for one million dollars over a false accusation of fraud: now she must pay all court costs. (Personal accountability)

And, of course, I added the revenue from the labor of prisoners, who pay their own cost for imprisonment, courts, emergency services, restitution, etc.

Finally, the usage fee upon land-use affords the government the power to collect the actual costs to the government of protecting everyone’s right to private property, either through the maintenance of the military, or through law enforcement. And the provision:

Any fiscal-program income deduction annually re-authorized by electoral initiative

This allows the government to continue to take out paycheck deductions to fund any social programs that the People decide every year to continue. Remember, my goal is to provide a teaching tool through direct democracy, a hands-on direct reminder of the need for personal accountability, and of the direct cost for a lack of it–not to simply impose a new system with new tax rates, and hope that the People are OK with far less government all at once.

Your formula for central governance is vague and not supported by specific data that shows how much money you expect to acquire and how much money you need to fund your bureaucracy.

My formula for decentralized governance is quite specific, much more so than our current Constitution. I take it, then, that you haven’t read through the preview of it?

you have provided no explaination on how the bureaucrats that act as arbitrators for your many usage fees would be deterred from corruption and bribery. Indeed, with tremendous sources of money changing hands, do you discount the possibility of massive fraud and poltiical patronage ?

Centinel, we already have a fully-functioning, surprisingly-uncorrupt, system of revenue collection in place now. The same agencies that currently collect court fees, traffic ticket fines, property taxes, etc., will still be authorized to fund the government. The simple beauty of my plan is its relatively-seamless transition from what we have now. The only jarring change will be the abolition of Congress. And I’ll repeat for the last time that my system places individual accountability at the forefront on every level, public and private. Each Secretary in every Adminstration is himself charged with the duties and responsibilities of his department, and may be voted out of his position every year. Even lesser bureaucrats, if appointed by an elected officer, may be fired by the People.

But I sense that I will be unable to persuade you of the merit of such a system, judging by your previous post. So be it. I’m sure you spent a great deal of time and effort on your Economic Bill of Rights; and you’re understandably sticking with it. Frankly, I think we have different goals anyway. I’m primarily concerned with making people more moral, more personally accountable; I care much less about unleashing the full forces of a free market upon the world, letting private, profit-maximizing firms do as they wish, only paying for the consequences after the fact. I worry about a-hole CEO’s just as much as I do corrupt bureaucrats. Human nature has to be changed–before any system has a chance.

70

@DLD,

I’m primarily concerned with making people more moral, more personally accountable; I care much less about unleashing the full forces of a free market upon the world, letting private, profit-maximizing firms do as they wish, only paying for the consequences after the fact. – DLD

This is where we part ways. I believe that an unfettered free market is the best framework to insure accountability. If a firm or individual engages in irresponsible behavior in the free market - their wealth and reputation are immediately in decline. No consumer is going to patronize a firm that sells inferior goods and services. Moreover, without a government safety net motivated by a quid pro quo scheme of votes for welfare, unemployment, and retirement benefits – - citizens will exercise far more due diligence in making financial decisions. Hence, a decrease in government, results in an increase in personal freedoms and responsibilty, and a decrease in moral hazard which equates in a more dynamic, productive, and prosperous society.

IN contrast, government is the means by which inefficient, greedy, uncompetitive politically connected cronies in the private and public sector go to get bailed out or protected from competition in another quid pro quo scheme of bribes for preferential tax and regulatory treatment.

In sum, if it is fairness and accountability you seek – government is not the answer, it is the problem. By definition, corporations cannot make money in a free market unfettered by government cronism by screwing their customers.

I worry about a-hole CEO’s just as much as I do corrupt bureaucrats. Human nature has to be changed–before any system has a chance.-- DLD

I got news for you – they are working together. An a-hole CEO aint a problem to me as long as he delivers quality goods and services at a fair price. They become a problem when they form a duopoly with government for preferential tax and regulatory policies that enables them to gain market share and protection from competition.

I guarantee that every single line in the tax code is put there by self-interested politicians catering for votes and campaign contributions from special interests and uncompetitive firms.

Human nature has to be changed–before any system has a chance. – DLD

You can’t change human nature.

You can create a system in which people interact within a free and voluntary framework so that the self-interests of each actor must be satisfied by convincing others that what they have to offer is beneficial to them. Indeed, this system forces firms and investors to constantly compete with others for consumer preferences based on merit and economic realities.

In contrast, your government system is based on self-interested actors engaged in political interaction that has little to do with economic realities. Indeed, it is not how productive, innovative, or merit – it is based on who you know in Washington and how much your willing to bribe them in a quid pro quo scheme of votes and/or campaign contributions for tax and regulatory favors.

Meritorius actors need not apply.

ANd the most dangerous of all of the duopolies of government and special interests is that of direct democracy. Indeed, it is when 50.1% of the citizenry decide to plunder the remaining 49.9%

We have seen the end result of this scheme — it is great until society runs out of victims to plunder.

See Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, et al. All of these regimes were based on egalitarianism in theory yet in practice a thugocracy gains power for itself. Indeed, when society entrusts government with the power to pick winners and losers – to allocate vast sums of wealth using tax and regulatory policy across the entire economy – it solidifies its hold on power.

71

Centinel

I believe that an unfettered free market is the best framework to insure accountability. If a firm or individual engages in irresponsible behavior in the free market - their wealth and reputation are immediately in decline

I may be mistaken, but I thought that you supported state law enforcement as a necessary evil. Is it now only the “bottom line” that a company imperils, and not their freedom, when their cost/benefit analyses indicate that the private lawsuits that will result from a faulty safety device won’t outpace the potential profits–so start production immediately? And has BP suffered much business loss, except what fines and clean-up costs the government imposed? Do you think that China can’t sell any more toys because a few were poisonous? Tip of the iceberg without government sanctions.

Moreover, without a government safety net motivated by a quid pro quo scheme of votes for welfare, unemployment, and retirement benefits – - citizens will exercise far more due diligence in making financial decisions. Hence, a decrease in government, results in an increase in personal freedoms and responsibilty, and a decrease in moral hazard which equates in a more dynamic, productive, and prosperous society.

That’s why I support ending the safety net, or at least forcing a yearly national vote to continue it. And my system will be far less government–just not 60 to 0 government in two seconds.

By definition, corporations cannot make money in a free market unfettered by government cronism by screwing their customers.

It’s not just their customers I’m thinking of. I’m also concerned about the preservation of a natural environment. But to each his own.

They become a problem when they form a duopoly with government for preferential tax and regulatory policies that enables them to gain market share and protection from competition

If they’re willing to collude with government, then they’re surely willing to collude with each other, especially after government steps out of the way.

I guarantee that every single line in the tax code is put there by self-interested politicians catering for votes and campaign contributions from special interests and uncompetitive firms.

No corporate or personal income taxes under my system.

it is based on who you know in Washington and how much your willing to bribe them in a quid pro quo scheme of votes and/or campaign contributions for tax and regulatory favors.

Your broken-record, anti-bribery dogma doesn’t apply to a system without any campaigns but President–and he doesn’t make regulations–which are strictly curtailed anyway–or exercise any power to tax.

ANd the most dangerous of all of the duopolies of government and special interests is that of direct democracy. Indeed, it is when 50.1% of the citizenry decide to plunder the remaining 49.9%

Once again, mine isn’t that simple. But I’ll face the decisions made by 51% more readily than by 535 Congress members.

Thanks for your input, Centinel. I see where you’re coming from.

72

I may be mistaken, but I thought that you supported state law enforcement as a necessary evil. – DLD

You are correct. The most difficult monopoly to overcome is that of armed force. Hence, a government structure that intentionally limits, balances, decentralizes and makes transparent the elements of armed force in society must be developed and maintained.

Using an analogy, our Constitutional Federal Republic is designed to undermine and weaken government and its abilty to morph into absolutism— not enhance it or give it more resonsibilities. It is like a political ‘vaccine’ of a small relatively inert level of government to help us monitor, identify and forestall the emergence of full blown abolustism. indeed, the vaccine administered in 1776 and later in 1787 needs to be refined and improved since the virus of statism has found a genetic weakness in our Constitutional Federal Republic that allows it to endanger the host via economic means.

Is it now only the “bottom line” that a company imperils, and not their freedom, when their cost/benefit analyses indicate that the private lawsuits that will result from a faulty safety device won’t outpace the potential profits–so start production immediately? – DLD

I believe in criminal convictions for negligence, not a slap on the wrist – the present scheme is simply a government sponsored protection agency for politically connected crony capitalists to get a slap on the wrist for negligent or intentional homicide.

And has BP suffered much business loss, except what fines and clean-up costs the government imposed? – DLD

If the Gulf of Mexico was privately owned and dependent on sportsman, fishing, entertainment, drilling and transit fees, rents, royalties and taxes. Do you think that BP would still be allowed to drill ? Indeed, they have been given a slap on the wrist for billions in damages to businesses across the Gulf – is it any surprise that Obama was the beneficiary of more BP political campaign contributions than any other candidate ??

Do you think that China can’t sell any more toys because a few were poisonous? Tip of the iceberg without government sanctions. --DLD

Do you trust government more than private consumer protection agencies ?

Do you trust a paper shuffling bureaucrat more than yourself exercising due diligence ?

Indeed, people aren’t stupid or ignorant – given the responsibility to manage their own affairs and protections they will do just fine, thank you.

And equally important, they won’t do it by bankrupting future generations to the tune of $100 trillion in unfunded debt with virtually nothing to show for it.

That’s why I support ending the safety net, or at least forcing a yearly national vote to continue it. And my system will be far less government–just not 60 to 0 government in two seconds. --DLD

amen bro.

It’s not just their customers I’m thinking of. I’m also concerned about the preservation of a natural environment. But to each his own. --DLD

Then form a corporation and buy up as much pristine geography as you can. Why should any private citizens be forced to forego the benefit of their resources, land, capital because environmentalists think the spotted owl is more important than jobs and the American family.

Nonetheless, I applaud your concern for the environment, it is commendable and necessary to protect it. Indeed, I think that environmentalists would do a far better job of protecting our natural resources with their own private capital than a government bureaucrat who is only interested in his own skin.

I believe Ted Turner is buying up as much land as possible, more power to him and you. It doesn’t cost a dime of taxpayers money and I bet Ted will do a far more efficient job enhancing and preserving this land than any politician or bureaucrat.

If they’re willing to collude with government, then they’re surely willing to collude with each other, especially after government steps out of the way. --DLD

And some most assuredly will, and I say BRING IT !!!

If a cartel emerges and decides to screw their customers with higher prices and lower quality goods and services – lets go into business or fund the competition. The free market will run these clowns out of business in short order and they will be discredit for a lifetime.

Indeed, a free market can fund and grow entirely new industries and companies in a matter of months, if not weeks if the opportunity presents itself.

Note that the only cartel that can impose its will on consumer without rebuke is a monopoly of armed force.

No corporate or personal income taxes under my system.- DLD

If a society is going to tax the citizenry – I can’t argue that your system of charging consumers directly for government services is inferior.

However, I would like to privatize all government services except national security and law.

Your broken-record, anti-bribery dogma doesn’t apply to a system without any campaigns but President–and he doesn’t make regulations–which are strictly curtailed anyway–or exercise any power to tax. – DLD

Corruption and bribery is directly related to the amount of tax and regulatory that a government possesses. When large sums of power and wealth are at risk – corruption will always follow. It doesn’t matter what kind of framework you form your government.

Indeed, when bank robber WIllie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied “that’s where the money is.”

Once again, mine isn’t that simple. But I’ll face the decisions made by 51% more readily than by 535 Congress members.–DLD

Whoa, tyranny of the majority.

Or according to Rummel who keeps track of such things, now estimates that in the 20th century 262,000,000 people were murdered by their own governments. And all these horrors were perpetrated by collectivist governments for the alleged sake of “the proletariat,” the “master race,” and especially, “the greater good.” None were done by countries based on individualism.

In sum, basic rights (life, liberty, and private property) must be guaranteed, not by the whim of the majority, but by God and natural law – and thus inviolate.

However, we are largely in agreement on the end game and the causes of our current problems – we just need to develop a mutually agreed upon mechanism to address these problems.

73

"

Anarchists are of the deluded opinion that ancap society would be peaceful when nothing could be further from the truth for the following reasons:

  1. security is required in ancap society – indeed no ancap denies this fact."

Actually, there exist scenarios where security is not required. A person who is permanently outside of contact of other people is without government, yet he has no need of security because he will not be attacked by other men. Also, in an ancap society, people may decide to not purchace anything that falls under security. By “security is required” do you mean that some people must have goods to secure themselves, or everyone must have goods to secure themselves, or something else. Also, many different goods can fall under the definition of security, can you describe exactly what you mean by security?

“2) if security is required in ancap society then the level of security is critical, so logically …”

This is a non sequitor. If some good is required, then the amount of that good may or may not be critical. What do you mean by level, and how can the “level” be determined?

"

  • a decrease in the level or funding of security increases the likelihood of predation
  • an increase in the level of security decreases the likelihood of precation.
  • hence, the economic profitability of a given resource (whether land, capital, labor, et al) will determine the level of security and hence the risk of attack

"

First two bullet points aren’t necessarily true, there could be no change in the likelihood. The third bullet point is another assertion that you haven’t proven. In actuality, people determine how they will be secure, which isn’t always based on the economic profitability of their resources.

"3) profit seeking actors in society will use armed force to acquire valued resources under the following conditions:

  • peaceful exchange is not possible
  • peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of force to acquire the resource
  • acquisition of the resource by coercive means results in a net gain in profit"

People will use coercion if they expect to benefit from it. They don’t necessarily follow these bullet points.

"4) society will generally approve of and benefit by coercive action to acquire valued resources if the following occurs:

  • efficient economic managers who acquire valued resources will better manage, market, utilize these resources thereby increasing growth and standards of living.
  • the citizenry will approve of this action if heretofore mismanaged and denied resources are made available to the markets thereby increasing supply, reducing scarcity and lowering prices"

Society cannot approve of a coercive action. Only people can. And why would people approve of the coercion from a claim of efficiency? What about morality?

“5) and the fallacy from ancaps that military defense agencies will not wage war because they directly bear the costs of war is debunked because they similarly benefit from the plunder of war.”

It does not debunk this unless it can be shown that the plunder will outweigh the costs. The problem is that the costs will outweigh the benefits in an ancap society, because people will not trust the warring defense agencies.

“Hence, MDA will actually be more aggressive in utilizing their capital investment in warmaking equipment and personnel. Indeed, they will be forced to use these resources otherwise they will have been wasted. It is like spending billions on production machinery, yet not turning on the power in the manufacturing plant.”

A good isn’t necessarily wasted if it isn’t used. Examples include the “just in case” gun in the back pocket, or “just in case” savings.

74

"

Moreover, supporting secession doesn’t mean someone is an anarchist – indeed, this is another ridiculous strawman argument.

Hence…

Support for unlimited secession doesn’t make one an anarchist, duh. "

Unless you limit succession to a particular level, say, that a state can break away but not a county. Although this begs the question of why a state but why not a smaller locality like a county.

The point of this argument is that if you support the right of individuals to succeed from the state, in effect you would not be opposed to anarchism, if people wanted to break away from the state. You might have an opinon that it would be foolish for people to seccede like that, if thats what you mean

“Amusingly, you have just parroted a fallacy frequently issued by brain dead statists. Namely, that government is the only entity that can fund large scale enterprises.”

Strawman. The argument was that it would be costly for a PDA to do war, not that it couldn’t have a large scale enterprise. You need to establish that large scale enterprise as a PDA implies the ability to wage war.

" Indeed, there is no logical, empirical, or factual argument that says free market enterprises like a private military agency cannot grow as large as a statist military."

This misses the point. The point is not how big the military can grow, but how costly the warring will be. The argument is that a state can pass the costs onto a third party, a PDA can’t.

75

@eliotn

Your post is rife with fallacies. I will debunk them in no particular order starting with this one:

Actually, there exist scenarios where security is not required. A person who is permanently outside of contact of other people is without government, yet he has no need of security because he will not be attacked by other men. – eliotn

Indeed, if someone is a hermit totally removed from civilization then my statement: does not apply since a single individual living alone does not constitute a society.

YOur next strawman debunked below…

76

This is a non sequitor. If some good is required, then the amount of that good may or may not be critical. What do you mean by level, and how can the “level” be determined? – eliotn

Defense expands from one tank to two tanks – that represents an increase in the level of security.

Moreover, with this increase, the likelihood of predation is decreased.

In sum, your assertion that expanded defense DOES NOT reduce the likelihood of predation is manifestly illogical thinking.

77

Certainly, then, you can explain exactly how much the increase in the level of security is, and exactly how much the likelihood of predation is decreased, by expanding from one tank to two tanks. Simply saying that doing so increases the level of security and decreases the likelihood of predation means nothing, as those are “increase” and “decrease” are quantitative terms.

78

People will use coercion if they expect to benefit from it. They don’t necessarily follow these bullet points.-- eliotn

Economic profit seeking actors will always use coercion under the following conditions:

  • peaceful exchange is not possible
  • peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of force to acquire the resource
  • acquisition of the resource by coercive means results in a net gain in profit

To do otherwise under these conditions would be irrational for an economic profit seeking actor.

Note that the tenets outlined above do not represent irrational actors or those societal actors who place subjective moral value judgments ahead of economic profit.

79

Unless you limit succession to a particular level, say, that a state can break away but not a county. Although this begs the question of why a state but why not a smaller locality like a county.

The point of this argument is that if you support the right of individuals to succeed from the state, in effect you would not be opposed to anarchism, if people wanted to break away from the state. You might have an opinon that it would be foolish for people to seccede like that, if thats what you mean – eliotn

I dont have a clue what you are trying to say here – but it does nothing to debunk my assertion that:

  1. von MIses was not an anarchist, and

  2. von Mises’ support for succession does not prove that he was an anarchist.

Strawman. The argument was that it would be costly for a PDA to do war, not that it couldn’t have a large scale enterprise. You need to establish that large scale enterprise as a PDA implies the ability to wage war. – eliotn

Absurd.

if Marxist society can fund large scale military forces – then certainly an economically more efficient capitalist society can fund equally formidable military forces.

Moreover, myriad military forces throughout history, both public and private, have used armed force for economic gain.

Indeed, it is amusing and somewhat contradictory that you seem to believe that private society cannot fund an adequate level of military force to engage in offensive operations.

Are you a Marxist ?

80

I’m going to repost my counter-argument to this from another thread:

It seems that the first proposition is really just a sub-case of the second proposition. However, there can be no objectivity attributed to the phrase “more costly”. Whether a person thinks peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force is up to him - that is, it’s his subjective judgement. The same applies to the third proposition. So Retopper’s Centinel’s position can be restated as the following: at all times, there exists at least one person and at least one resource for which 1) the person considers peaceful exchange to be more costly than the use of physical force to take the resource, and 2) the person’s perceived/expected benefits from possessing the resource exceed the perceived/expected costs of acquiring it by using physical force.

The only problem I have with about the above is that it’s impossible to prove that at least one such person and resource exist at all times. If one simply treats the proposition as a premise, however, proof is unnecessary. Even then, however, it’s impossible to predict just which people and which resources the proposition holds true for at any given time.

Essentially, Retopper’s Centinel’s argument is that, because men aren’t angels (or, at the very least, not all men are angels), a monopoly over the legitimate use of coercion is necessary. I fail to see how this follows. As I’ve stated before, I think coercion (here defined as “the use or threat of violence”) is sometimes legitimate. However, that in no way means to me that such legitimate coercion must be monopolized - as it’s done, by definition, by the state.