The failure of Anarcho-Capitalism

Economics Political Theory
1

There exists in the anarcho-capitalist mantra a fundamental flaw which undermines the claim that a stateless society is viable. Namely, the reliance on private defense firms to provide security, both international and domestic, is a dramatic error. The source of this error is a mistaken understanding of the origin of the state.

The basic argument I hear is that the state was formed by agrarian peoples to protect themselves from roaming marauders, barbarians, and thugs. This new institution was granted (or acquired) a monopoly on the use of force, thus establishing a jurisdiction. It then morphed into an oppressive, parasitical entity due to the public-choice consequences of granting ultimate-decision-making power to a single body. From this viewpoint, it makes sense to belive that simply by granting such power to competing entities, and eliminating public-law, we could be rid of the various exploitative opportunities presented to the members of the ruling class.

However, a more realistic (and anti-govt) explanation of the origin of the state will quickly dash the hopes of would be Anarchists. For the above explanation assumes the state was formed voluntarily by some collection of individuals for the purpose of mutual defense from the roaming marauders. This seems a bit unrealistic. As I have heard Rockwell say numerous times, “It’s a wonder this thing ever got off the ground.”

I propose that the state was NOT formed to protect against roaming muraders, but instead that the state was formed BY the roaming muraders themselves. The logic goes as follows:

Imagine you are a petty warlord in charge of a gang of thugs roaming the countryside looking to profit from your superior fighting ability. You come across a helpless farmer who has just harvested his wheat crop. What are your options?

  1. You can take all of his crops. The problem with this option is that this will be a “one-off” robbery. You will leave the farmer ruined and unable/unwilling to produce further goods. This is bad for you b/c (as a parasite) you rely on the productive efforts of others to survive. After all, why should the farmer bother growing crops if he just has to give them all to you.

  2. You can take less than all of his crops, leaving him enough to support himself, make a small profit, and to create an incentive for him to continue to produce. This will allow you to steal from him season after season. The problem with this option is that you can not be sure you will benefit from further crop yields. In order to be sure that you will benefit from further crop yields, you must become monopolist exploiters (i.e. you must prevent others from coming in behind you and stealing the rest).

To become monopolist exploiters the bandits must, by definition, drive off other potential exploiters. They have thus assumed to role of “protector.” Sadly, this is the best condition the farmer can hope for, least he be fully exploited, ruined, and forced back into a survivalist lifestyle.

In option number two, all aspects of government have been manifested. Taking a portion of the crops is taxation. Driving out other potential exploiters is national defense. Exerting your will through force is public-law, regulation, etc. Quelling resistance is domestic security.

Once we accept this explanation of the state, we can see that working for a stateless society is like a gazelle working for a lion-less savannah. Thus, in order to see our libertarian ideolologies manifested in reality, rather than reject the state, we must instead seize control of it.

Anarchy Debunked
An-caps, STOP lying to yourself!
exploitation of security
Why are there so many conspiracy nuts here?
2

Here’s the first mistake people make when discussing the origins of the state; that it was the same all over.

The second mistake; thinking it was some farmer and some other farmer doing something. These early aggrarain societies were simply tribes that had less of a need to migrate.

g2g, I like where you’re coming from, but I would like to see it more from a historical, not a philosophical, perspective.

3

“The basic argument I hear is that the state was formed by agrarian peoples to protect themselves from roaming marauders, barbarians, and thugs.”

I earlier suggested that “the origin of the state is tied to the origin of religion. Religion provided explanation and was used to justify authority. I speculate bad ideas easily became dominant with the state’s creation. Its existence eventually made it considered normal, a part of life, although the reason it allegedly needed to exist was never logically proven. Even in the 21st century, U.S. presidents place their hands on the bible when promising to adhere to the U.S. constitution. What about the secular governments? I earlier explained that governments “have existed for centuries. They are considered normal. People are unaware that they are unnecessary and any arguably necessary function they serve can be privately provided.”

I agree with Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun that different prehistoric governments may have originated due to different reasons.

“I propose that the state was NOT formed to protect against roaming muraders, but instead that the state was formed BY the roaming muraders themselves.”

That is possible, but it may not be the only explanation.

“You can take less than all of his crops, leaving him enough to support himself, make a small profit, and to create an incentive for him to continue to produce. This will allow you to steal from him season after season.”

This assumes the farmer does not resist by moving, by fighting back, and/or by cooperating with other farmers to fight, the marauders.

“Sadly, this is the best condition the farmer can hope for, least he be fully exploited”

As I said earlier, the farmer has various resistance options. The farmer could become a marauder.

I doubt most of U.S. police forces and the U.S. military view themselves are marauders. I suspect most of them view their profession as necessary. If these people can be persuaded of private security provision, they can may be reluctant, if not, defiant of government orders.

4

Let us destroy this nonsensical diatribe.

Firstly, the proposal you put forward is a manifestation of Thomas Paine’s belief that the British government, and other governments, are nothing but the result of a band of ruffians. There are multiple explanations of the origins of the state. In fact whole books have been devoted to the topic. Frankly I don’t see how this has anything to do with PDA’s and their perceived inadequacy. Ok, so the state was formulated by ruffians, therefore PDA’s are lacking? How does that follow?

Secondly, how does it follow that since we are being taxed and suppressed by an institution that we must assume control of said institution to achieve libertarian success? This is a concept very much like Marx’s ‘withering away of the state’ because it will supposedly discontinue in it’s usefulness. Your argument itself acknowledges that the state is full of exploiters which leads me to question why you would want libertarians in such an environment. Since you haven’t addressed why PDA’s are lacking, why do you assume that a state is necessary? What is in a state that cannot be brought about by voluntary exchange?

5

“As I said earlier, the farmer has various resistance options. The farmer could become a marauder.”

I agree that the farmer may resist and/or become a murder himself. In fact, If the farmer (and his friends) are powerful enough to fight the marauders, they would be foolish to continue farming. It is more profitable to become marauders themselves and steal from some other farmer. However, due to the natural diversity of human beings and to specialization, it should be clear that only some portion of individuals would be capable of filling this role. Whatever the ratio is, not everyone can be a marauder.

“I doubt most of U.S. police forces and the U.S. military view themselves are marauders. I suspect most of them view their profession as necessary. If these people can be persuaded of private security provision, they can may be reluctant, if not, defiant of government orders.”

I defiantly agree with this statement. In a modern state, the actual marauding is done by mere employees who have been indoctrinated to accept the glory of the state. This makes the true exploiters (behind the scenes) much more vulnerable than a simple gang of bully in a pre-historic society. I agree undermining the employees willingness to follow the exploiters is a good thing.

“the origin of the state is tied to the origin of religion”

This I must take some exception to this one. While it is certainly true that states and religious institutions have historically been tied closely together, I see it as the state co-opting various “thought-leaders” and “opinion-molders” into its ranks. Much the same way as the modern state brings in a multitude of economists, “experts,” media personalities, etc. to keep the farmers from resisting and making the job of exploitation that much easier.

thanks for the reply … keep 'em comin.

6

Obviously ancap won’t work if nobody believes in the NAP. Whatever the origin, the state did arise in an era with much less communication going around. I believe - maybe foolishly, who knows - that in an ancap world few will fancy giving up their freedoms, especially if there is no government failure to blaim on the free market.

7

Ok, I guess you are right I didn’t draw the connection to PDA’s fully.

"What is in a state that cannot be brought about by voluntary exchange? " - Absolutely nothing. That isn’t the point. The point is that the state imposes itself weather you would be better off without it or not.

“Ok, so the state was formulated by ruffians, therefore PDA’s are lacking? How does that follow?” - Well, first one might ask why these (theoretical) PDA’s didn’t drive off the ruffians in the first place. But my basic point is that the State, as we know it, IS a PDA (from its own perspective). It protects you from being exploited by anyone else. Just like a farmer protects his sheep from wolves, but then slaughters them.

Perhaps a thought experiment: You are walking down the street with $100 in your pocket. A ruffian leaps out and demands your money. A “protector” then comes along and offers to drive off this ruffian .. for a price. How much would you be willing to pay for this service?

Once you have thought about that, how are the two any different and why would the “protector” be willing to take a price cut if he is stronger than the ruffian. Maybe I could bounce this back at you and ask you to describe the market process by which a PDA could ever come into existence in the first place… (without the need for a new “libertarian man” who takes less then he could).

8

Government is necessary to resolve disputes. What you must first realize is that resolving a dispute requires the use of force (or implied use of it). This makes it fundamentally different from trade. A trade requires no force and is a win-win situation. A dispute has a winner and a loser and requires the use of force. You have to know ahead of time the rules of the game and the referee for a given geographical area. I suppose a private firm could be hired to handle this, however there can only be one firm and one set of laws covering a certain area. Otherwise a defendant with superior firepower will never submit to the inferior one.

9

mgmcintyre, thinking about your example, sure it is right, and applicable to PDA based law and security system too. But, the vital point comes in regarding whether the PDAs(starting from a hypothetical anarchic society) stay nonagressive towards each other and as such the service they offer stays exchange based, or they are aggressive which leads to collusion and the state(and elimination of exchange in the distribution of security).

The fact that the very essence of the service PDAs offer is about aggression(even if defensive one), suggests that they may really be different from other industries in regard to aggressive competition.

10

“Well, first one might ask why these (theoretical) PDA’s didn’t drive off the ruffians in the first place.”

Maybe the farmers did not expect to be robbed by ruffians and then the ruffians ensured the farmers would not resist by requiring weapon control which is currently and commonly referred to as gun control.

“But my basic point is that the State, as we know it, IS a PDA (from its own perspective).”

It is a public (tax/theft-funded) defense agency which defends against thieves, except itself, not a private defense agency.

“You are walking down the street with $100 in your pocket. A ruffian leaps out and demands your money. A “protector” then comes along and offers to drive off this ruffian .. for a price.”

I have a choice to accept or decline protection from a thief. A government would remove thief, then replace the thief in demanding my money.

“the market process by which a PDA could ever come into existence in the first place”

Consumers want a product. Suppliers try to satisfy consumers. It works for apples and computers. It would work for security, if it was allowed to work.

“(without the need for a new “libertarian man” who takes less then he could).”

Libertarianism does not require a massive change in human nature like stop being lustful. The poorest members of the quasi-free U.S. economy are drastically richer compared to past marauders. To participate in a voluntary economy is to ensure the long-term wealth for oneself and one’s children, if one has any, assuming no natural disaster or war. People are influenced by ideas. Anarcho-capitalists have to defeat bad ideas with better ones.

11

Rothbard nails the origin of government in Anatomy of the State.

I don’t, however, get your argument that I could not pay somebody of protect my property from being stolen by a band of thieves. Of course you could. And this of course IS different than the state because I have my CHOICE of which person or company to hire, and firms will COMPETE for my business. None of this “protectors won’t be willing to take price cuts” stuff. This is a free market after all.

12

@GREO

“Maybe the farmers did not expect to be robbed by ruffians and then the ruffians ensured the farmers would not resist by requiring weapon control which is currently and commonly referred to as gun control.” - so the reason that states out-competed PDA’s at some point in history was becasue of a well timed sneak-attack. A pre-historic “smash-and-grab” operation … seems unlikely.

“It is a public (tax/theft-funded) defense agency which defends against thieves, except itself, not a private defense agency.” - True. But for the first thugs who thought of this scam, it was a start up. Two pre-historic thugs have a conversation:

thugmgmcintyre**:** “Hey, if we steal less from these poor saps now, we can can steal more from them in the future. It’s an investment.”

thuggreo**:**“But wont we have to protect them from other thugs like us. That will cost money.”

thugmgmcintyre:“Trust me. We will make a lot more this way. Plus we can tell them what to do and make them worship us and give us women.”

thuggreo**:**“Ok, lets do it.”

13

Let me clarify something. No need to link to Rothbard etc. to convince me of the evils of the state. I agree. I’m not defending it. I listen to mises podcasts, lectures, read the daily often enough, etc. I am a libertarian. Stop dodging the question.

Again I ask: How much would you be willing to pay someone to prevent the theft of your $100. Would you pay $50 to keep your $100? How about $99? $99.99? $100? Why would any “protector” capable of driving off the thug take less than $100 unless he is also a monopolist exploiter.

Don’t dodge the question. Explain how the price system and market forces work in this environment,

14

Why would any “protector” capable of driving off the thug take less than $100 unless he is also a monopolist exploiter.

because he is in competition with protectors who would compete with him on price, and he is not in a prisoners dilemma but in a society were repeat business and good reputations are critical to profitability

15

The same way every other price is driven down. Competition among agencies. There are currently more private police than public, and their rates are not one penny under the damage they prevent.

16

“so the reason that states out-competed PDA’s at some point in history was becasue of a well timed sneak-attack. A pre-historic “smash-and-grab” operation … seems unlikely.”

It was not necessarily a sneak attack. Farmers could have lived in peace until marauders appeared. Surprised and unprepared, the farmers were quickly subjugated by the marauders.

17

‘Absolutely nothing. That isn’t the point. The point is that the state imposes itself weather you would be better off without it or not.’

Then why seek to take over the state?

‘Well, first one might ask why these (theoretical) PDA’s didn’t drive off the ruffians in the first place.’

The theory and preservation of human right hasn’t always been prevalent in history. It would be engaging in presentism to assume modern values in ancient societies.

‘But my basic point is that the State, as we know it, IS a PDA (from its own perspective). It protects you from being exploited by anyone else. Just like a farmer protects his sheep from wolves, but then slaughters them.’

When the state ‘defends’, it only does show when its power is in jeopardy and it uses others to do its work. While getting others to do your bidding isn’t necessarily wrong, the state has a history of making involuntary.

‘Perhaps a thought experiment: You are walking down the street with $100 in your pocket. A ruffian leaps out and demands your money. A “protector” then comes along and offers to drive off this ruffian .. for a price. How much would you be willing to pay for this service?’

Well in this thought experiment I would be grateful to the individual but no exchange was formulated before hand. I would feel obligated to compensate the individual for their help but that is a personal view and such an exchange is not demanded. The state however is not a noble protector. It is not Batman, someone who fights injustice without need of compensation. The government is just a ruffian that follows you around and takes your money, defends you in order to retain such a power and this can and mostly is involuntary.

’ Maybe I could bounce this back at you and ask you to describe the market process by which a PDA could ever come into existence in the first place… (without the need for a new “libertarian man” who takes less then he could). ’

Well you already have seen minimal examples of PDA’s. Have you not heard of bodyguards? Defense can be bought and sold like any other service. There are varying degrees. Perhaps you’ve had a crime committed against you, hire a private detective. Perhaps a gang is threatening your life, hire a small group of bodyguards, maybe a police officer to patrol your street. There doesn’t need to be a radical awakening of a ‘libertarian man.’ There just is no market that is able to open such a service and for it to be effective government must have ended its monopoly on security.

18

the counter argument you guys have given to mgmcintyre has been that competition will make the game disappear is incorrect. It is confirmed by Rothbard’s own monopoly theory: price is always a voluntary thing. Price establishment in a market with 1000 producers of a good is no different form that of a market with 1 producer, in both cases its fundamental praxeological charecter is the same.

But there is a more devious part to the situation he showed: the would be defender from the robber itself effectively IS the STATE,even if he only asks for a nickle in exchange for prottecting from the robber. Since the alternatives available to the victim are just the same as in the case of the tax payer in any state: either pay your taxes(that is money to the would be defender) or get hurt(robbed by thug)

19

Surely there would be more than 1 private court business so the ability of the market to self-organize via pricing is a relevant argument.

20

Is this a joke? I know of NO anarcho-capitalist that thinks the state originated in this way. Rothbard didn’t, nor did Friedman, nor did de Jasay.

I challenge you to name a single anarcho-capitalist theorist that holds this position.