You’ve had ample time to go back and respond to my posts, including the last one I made (just above the one of yours that I’m responding to). The fact that you apparently haven’t done so, yet have responded twice in this thread since my last post, can only mean to me that you’re deliberately ignoring certain statements. In other words, it looks to me like you’re just cherry-picking.
I’ve already pointed out the insurance business model to you twice, once in this thread and once in your other thread. Now I’ve pointed it out three times. Additionally, there’s the last post I’ve made in this thread. I don’t think it’s rocket surgery to go back and look at my posts in this thread.
Yes, and I think the responsibility still lies with you. If you don’t want to be seen as intellectually dishonest (which you may or may not care about), you’ll go back and look for things you missed (although I think you may know what they are already).
I take care to always include the username of the person I’m responding to when I quote them. Hence I always include xarthaz’s username when I quote her, and I always include your username when I quote you. Again, it doesn’t seem like rocket surgery to figure out exactly where I’m responding to you as opposed to xarthaz.
Basically, my question to you is, why should I help you? To be quite honest, this seems like a cop-out, a device to let you get out of responding to those things which you seem (to me) to have deliberately ignored.
mgmcintyre makes some good points here. I don’t think the example of internet security was an effective rebuttal. Another good argument against PDA’s was made by Clayton in another thread. He pointed out that states have contracts with their citizens but don’t honor them. This illustrates a fundamental difference that PDA’s have with other businesses. PDA’s are ostensibly needed to enforce contracts. And in order to employ a PDA, one must have a contract with the PDA. But what if the PDA violates its contract with you? Well, it seems you would need another PDA to enforce the contract you had with the first PDA. You can see how this leads to an infinite regression. So the typical ancap response seems to be that if the PDA doesn’t honor your contract, then find a different PDA. The market will eliminate the bad PDA’s. The problem with this response is that it completely undermines the whole argument for PDA’s in the first place. If the market can eliminate PDA’s that violate their contracts, why can’t it eliminate other entities that violate their contracts? If workers occupy your factory, why send a PDA after them? Why not just hire different employees next time?
And it seems that the voluntary contracting of PDA’s would naturally move towards monopolization. Suppose I have a property dispute with someone. My PDA and her PDA run into conflict. My PDA says, “her PDA is too powerful. It’s not worth our time to fight. Sorry.” What am I going to learn from this? I’m going to learn that I need to switch to her PDA. But not because her PDA is better at protecting “legitimate” property, but that it is better at protecting the property of its clients. And this PDA need not honor my contract fully. As mgmcintyre pointed out, my PDA simply has to exploit me less than its non-clients. And as the PDA gets bigger, the more leverage it has against non-clients, which also makes it harder for me to leave my PDA even if I think it is acting immorally.
Further, I think property owners in many cases will forbid competing PDA’s from using their property. This is particularly important when it comes to things such as roads. A road owner wouldn’t want a PDA with hostile interests accessing his roads. In addition, PDA’s would likely charge lower rates if their clients forbid other PDA’s from using their roads.
When one looks at the market for PDA’s, one must ask why this doesn’t apply to the current state military/defense system? Why not consider states to be PDA’s rather than something completely different?
When one looks at the market for PDA’s, one must ask why this doesn’t apply to the current state military/defense system? Why not consider states to be PDA’s rather than something completely different?>>>>
Because law provides for a monopoly in that market. So you have people like abraham lincoln, who saw the federal government as a compact between the states before electon, and a superior government after he took office, and so cult of personality created new social norms. With PDA’s clearly existing and operating as for-profit companies without geospatial monopolies on force, this perception shift wouldnt occur.
Further, I think property owners in many cases will forbid competing PDA’s from using their property. This is particularly important when it comes to things such as roads. A road owner wouldn’t want a PDA with hostile interests accessing his roads. In addition, PDA’s would likely charge lower rates if their clients forbid other PDA’s from using their roads.>>>>
PDA’s are not presumed to be hostile. I cannot imagine why you would assume that property owners would all wish to exchange one monopoly for another, unless you were trying to marginalize the main argument for PDA’s and against states-pluralistic markets vs monopoly.
In fact, if you really want to define PDA’s and states to be the same thing, then what exactly is your argument? That my current PDA sucks and therefore all PDA’s are guaranteed to suck?
My PDA says, “her PDA is too powerful. It’s not worth our time to fight. Sorry.” What am I going to learn from this? I’m going to learn that I need to switch to her PDA.>>>>
why would you switch to a PDA that just rolled you on an illegitimate claim? Why not perform due diligence this time, and hire a trustworthy PDA? Or in your mental universe, is that, like good government, an impossibility?
He pointed out that states have contracts with their citizens but don’t honor them. This illustrates a fundamental difference that PDA’s have with other businesses. PDA’s are ostensibly needed to enforce contracts. And in order to employ a PDA, one must have a contract with the PDA. But what if the PDA violates its contract with you? Well, it seems you would need another PDA to enforce the contract you had with the first PDA. You can see how this leads to an infinite regression.>>>>
not really. How do all these untrustworthy PDA’s stay in business without widespread social acceptance? Your story reminds me of when I tried to report a utitlities monopoly to the FTC for bad business practices. So I fail to see how it is a critique of anarchism. Perhaps if you fleshed it out more, perhaps in a universe that doesnt assume counterparty risk = counterparty failure…
Because law provides for a monopoly in that market. So you have people like abraham lincoln, who saw the federal government as a compact between the states before electon, and a superior government after he took office, and so cult of personality created new social norms. With PDA’s clearly existing and operating as for-profit companies without geospatial monopolies on force, this perception shift wouldnt occur.
But what would stop a PDA from imposing a law in a market? I think a PDA that has a geospatial monopoly would be more profitable than one that doesn’t. So it seems they would work towards that goal. The goal of competition is not to maintain competition but to end it, to become dominant.
PDA’s are not presumed to be hostile. I cannot imagine why you would assume that property owners would all wish to exchange one monopoly for another, unless you were trying to marginalize the main argument for PDA’s and against states-pluralistic markets vs monopoly.
Well, suppose people were driving through toll booths without paying. The owner tries to go after the violators but their PDA’s protect them. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for him to prevent those PDA’s from using his roads? Otherwise, who would pay tolls if they could find a PDA to get to them out of it?
In fact, if you really want to define PDA’s and states to be the same thing, then what exactly is your argument? That my current PDA sucks and therefore all PDA’s are guaranteed to suck?
Pretty much, yes.
why would you switch to a PDA that just rolled you on an illegitimate claim? Why not perform due diligence this time, and hire a trustworthy PDA? Or in your mental universe, is that, like good government, an impossibility?
The PDA rolled me because I wasn’t its client. I’m not sure what you mean by trustworthy. In one sense, her PDA is untrustworthy in that its actions were immoral (assuming I was in the “right” in the dispute). In another sense it is trustworthy in that it always looks out for its clients interests whether they are moral or not. Of course I could decide to use a moral PDA, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t get rolled by the same immoral one again. Besides it’s not really clear what is moral. In any dispute, both sides usually think they’re in the right (at least in a competition oriented society).
not really. How do all these untrustworthy PDA’s stay in business without widespread social acceptance?
The same way the state stays in business.
Your story reminds me of when I tried to report a utitlities monopoly to the FTC for bad business practices. So I fail to see how it is a critique of anarchism. Perhaps if you fleshed it out more, perhaps in a universe that doesnt assume counterparty risk = counterparty failure…
It’s not a critique of anarchism. It’s a critique of PDA’s.
But what would stop a PDA from imposing a law in a market? I think a PDA that has a geospatial monopoly would be more profitable than one that doesn’t. So it seems they would work towards that goal.>>>>
that would be bad business. Why would the PDA spend resources attempting to detain people for violating an arbitrary rule?
Profit is not realized by “attempting to create a monopoly.” profit is realized by providing a good or a service at a competitive price. Without social approval, attempts to establish monopoly of force would be prohibitively costly. If successful, you may consider that the emergence of a state. While this is certainly possible, you seem to consider it inevitable. I invite you to explain why you think this might be so.
Well, suppose people were driving through toll booths without paying. The owner tries to go after the violators but their PDA’s protect them. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for him to prevent those PDA’s from using his roads? Otherwise, who would pay tolls if they could find a PDA to get to them out of it?>>>>
that sounds like an extraordinarily poor business decision for a PDA. I certainly would not engage in harboring a debt fugitive, shown sufficient evidence. Any protection contract I signed would include a clause exempting me from protecting someone against a legitimate claim on his property. So are we to suppose that most business owners are more foolish than me? Surely they would not make good bureaucrats either, then.
The PDA rolled me because I wasn’t its client. I’m not sure what you mean by trustworthy. In one sense, her PDA is untrustworthy in that its actions were immoral (assuming I was in the “right” in the dispute). In another sense it is trustworthy in that it always looks out for its clients interests whether they are moral or not. Of course I could decide to use a moral PDA, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t get rolled by the same immoral one again. Besides it’s not really clear what is moral. In any dispute, both sides usually think they’re in the right (at least in a competition oriented society).>>>>
The PDA committed an aggressive act. That violates common law in anarchist society. So how are they So big and prosperous if they piss everyone off? Is it because of whipped puppies like you who run to the oppressor and need to get educated on forms like this? Not trying to be personal here, its just odd. Continuing, a PDA that violated its contract like that wouldnt be very profitable either. So you imagine a world with people who go into business to protect people and make money, and then fail to protect people and engage in unprofitable behavior. Hard to see how this is relevant to anarchocapitalism. You assume that the smaller PDA isnt willing to compete in the market for protection by protecting their client from an act of aggression.
In a dispute, both sides believe they have a claim. The task of adjudicating the dispute is going to be more open and fair in a pluralistic resolution process. As it is now, one PDA profits from everything. Yet the market chooses other options wherever they appear. This is the process that will inevitably lead to a polycentric social apparatus and formal anarchy.
The same way the state stays in business.>>>>
the state has social acceptance. It is socially legitimate for a man in uniform to aggress against a private citizen in the domain of the state. If this social sanction is removed, then PDA’s will be subject to market forces and so will be forced to live up to their claims. A free market in currency means that they will not be able to fund endless wars or a police state, even if they wanted to.
It’s not a critique of anarchism. It’s a critique of PDA’s.>>>>
very well. Not everyone is capable of running a PDA, that much is obvious from your critique. You have yet to demonstrate that a well run PDA is implausible or fallacious, however, I am willing to be taught.
This might surprise you, but I think a lot of anarcho-capitalists overemphasize so-called “PDAs” (I’m not a fan of the term). Certainly I don’t think that PDAs would, collectively or individually, hold absolute power to enforce contracts.
While there could theoretically be an infinite regression, if you keep asking “What if that PDA violates its contract?” at every step, how likely do you think this would be in reality? The “higher” PDA would, at the very least, have an incentive to exploit less than the “lower” PDA. Assuming freedom of entry and exit, this would seem to lead to - again, at the very least - a minimization of exploitation.
Indeed, I think the market can (and does) eliminate other entities that violate their contracts. There are all sorts of non-violent sanctions that market actors can impose on them. Refusing to make any future dealings with them seems to be the general case.
Given that there’s always a non-zero probability for non-recoverable losses, people long ago came up with a work-around: insurance. I think insurance will perform an even more vital function in a free-market society than it does in today’s statist world.
This is one of the main reasons why I don’t like the “PDA” model of anarcho-capitalism. It’s too much like a government. However, if you switch to your neighbor’s PDA and the dispute is still resolved in her favor, what have you gained? Furthermore, how do you see disputes being resolved any differently when both/all parties subscribe to the same PDA?
People like Mgmcintyre seem to believe that, were it not for the police (or even the mere writing down of laws), people would essentially act as though they’re infected with the “Rage” virus from 28 Days Later*,* but even worse - since they wouldn’t solely go after the non-infected. All of my knowledge and understanding of our species’ biological heritage points to that unequivocably not being the case.
Anyways, I see a much more limited role for “PDAs”, namely they’re just security companies. Disputes would be handled by arbitration in private courts. (By “handled” I don’t mean that the “right” outcome will necessarily occur.) But even then, nothing would a priori or prima facierequire a person to take a person to court to settle a dispute. He could try to resolve it in his own favor. If the other party was indeed an aggressor under “common law”, he’s strongly likely to lose in a subsequent lawsuit. So I think some, maybe even many, disputes wouldn’t be settled in court at all, and they wouldn’t involve “PDAs” except in defense of property.
While there could indeed be incentives there, I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. Sure, the owner(s) of a road could employ one and only one security company to protect the road. However, people using the road may use other security companies for bodyguards and the like. Forbidding employees of other security companies on the road for those purposes is a gamble. Enough people may find that sufficiently unreasonable that they take their business elsewhere.
And again, one person using the same “PDA” as someone else does not prevent property disputes between the two of them in the slightest.
Indeed you could - in which case, no one actually owns anything except the PDA. We’re still in the Middle Ages, then. The fiefdoms have simply gotten bigger.
It’s possible that, at least under certain circumstances, trials in absentia could be allowed. If so, then if an actual aggressor failed to appear in court, a judgement could still be found against him. This would amount to giving the plaintiff a license to use (a certain kind and/or amount of) coercion against the defendant to recover his loss. Estoppel would preclude the defendant from pursuing a lawsuit against the plaintiff.
This might surprise you, but I think a lot of anarcho-capitalists overemphasize so-called “PDAs” (I’m not a fan of the term). Certainly I don’t think that PDAs would, collectively or individually, hold absolute power to enforce contracts.
OK. That sounds a bit more reasonable. I probably should read up more on these PDA’s. Some posts on this site may have given me the wrong impression.
While there could theoretically be an infinite regression, if you keep asking “What if that PDA violates its contract?” at every step, how likely do you think this would be in reality? The “higher” PDA would, at the very least, have an incentive to exploit less than the “lower” PDA. Assuming freedom of entry and exit, this would seem to lead to - again, at the very least - a minimization of exploitation.
There’s supposed to be a hierarchy of authority that checks lower law enforcement in our statist society, but I don’t think that works very well.
Given that there’s always a non-zero probability for non-recoverable losses, people long ago came up with a work-around: insurance. I think insurance will perform an even more vital function in a free-market society than it does in today’s statist world.
Interesting. I might like to explore that issue further (not in this thread though).
This is one of the main reasons why I don’t like the “PDA” model of anarcho-capitalism. It’s too much like a government. However, if you switch to your neighbor’s PDA and the dispute is still resolved in her favor, what have you gained? Furthermore, how do you see disputes being resolved any differently when both/all parties subscribe to the same PDA?
If her winning initially was due to the “strength” of her PDA, then I would expect some sort of advantage by switching to it. My chances against her might then be 50/50. I think my basic point is that the product of a PDA gets “better” as it gets bigger. This is not so much the case in other industries. For example, being bigger doesn’t make the burgers at McDonald’s better.
People like Mgmcintyre seem to believe that, were it not for the police (or even the mere writing down of laws), people would essentially act as though they’re infected with the “Rage” virus from 28 Days Later*,* but even worse - since they wouldn’t solely go after the non-infected. All of my knowledge and understanding of our species’ biological heritage points to that unequivocably not being the case.
Yeah, I definitely agree with you there. However, I think a system based upon competition and grow-or-die encourages such behavior. (I recommend Alfie Kohn’s No Contest for a thorough critique of competition.)
Anyways, I see a much more limited role for “PDAs”, namely they’re just security companies. Disputes would be handled by arbitration in private courts. (By “handled” I don’t mean that the “right” outcome will necessarily occur.) But even then, nothing would a priori or prima facierequire a person to take a person to court to settle a dispute. He could try to resolve it in his own favor. If the other party was indeed an aggressor under “common law”, he’s strongly likely to lose in a subsequent lawsuit. So I think some, maybe even many, disputes wouldn’t be settled in court at all, and they wouldn’t involve “PDAs” except in defense of property.
Ah, so you see them more as stopping crime as it happens rather than after? Like they wouldn’t arrest someone until they were convicted (perhaps in absentia, as you later mention)?
Indeed you could - in which case, no one actually owns anything except the PDA. We’re still in the Middle Ages, then. The fiefdoms have simply gotten bigger.
Right. Do you see the states (or elements of them) evolving into free market PDA’s? I’m still pretty clueless as to how ancaps expect to change society.
Understandable. Some people may play fast and loose with the term, I’m afraid.
I put “higher” and “lower” in quotes because I don’t think PDAs would be arranged in some sort of strict hierarchy. Keep in mind that states are by-and-large presumed to hold monopolies over the legitimate use of coercion within a given territory.
Feel free to start a new thread.
Not necessarily, but economies of scale exist in nearly every (albeit arbitrarily-defined) industry. While being bigger doesn’t necessarily make the burgers at McDonald’s taste better (to you), it may well make them more cost-effective. There’s no objective standard for “better”, is there?
In any case, I don’t think this criticism really applies to my own characterization of anarcho-capitalist society.
Can you please explain what you mean by “competition” and “grow-or-die”?
A PDA per se wouldn’t be empowered to arrest anyone merely because he’s been convicted of a crime. So yes, I see them as only stopping crime as it happens rather than afterward. That’s why I prefer to use the term “security company” instead of “PDA”.
Who could “go after” a person who’s been convicted in absentia? The authorization (and thus right of refusal) would ultimately rest with the plaintiff. He could simply “take the law into his own hands” if he wishes. Or he could hire others to do “the dirty work” for him. In the latter case, I think whether the people he hires are employed by a company that also provides security services is immaterial.
Well for one thing, people by-and-large believe that they really do own the things that the state says they legally own. Yet the state’s actions ultimately suggest otherwise. So one thing to do is show people the contradiction between the state’s statements and the state’s actions.
In general, though, I think a lot more people need to be convinced of the true nature of the state before any major social change can occur. Even then, the process would probably be incremental. Perhaps the goal should be for the state to “wither away” in much the same sense as many Marxist thinkers envisioned.