I would like to point out one thing. There are certain implications implicit in my argument. Namely, that if you started from a pre-civilization, pure anarchy (which necessarily existed at some point in history), the following things would occur:
1) Some groups would specialize in the use of force and use that force to pillage from others.
2) Sophisticated groups would realize they could maximize profits by becoming monopolist exploiters who could enjoy exclusive taxing rights and other benefits from those they victimized.
3) These groups would expand their jurisdiction until they ran into one another at which point an eliminative competition between exploiters would ensue.
4) Various considerations regarding the success or failure of these groups to compete with one another would be the main determining factor in how they structured themselves and what shape they took over time.
5) We would live in a world dominated by nation states.
Essentially, the entire experience of human history is one long argument in favor of my position. ^^
^defense is a collective action problem. In modern times, it is solvable because communication costs are approaching nil. Agricultural societies are very easy for states to conquer because they are disorganized and disconnected from one another. No more.
Autolykos, creating demand by using the same skill that is used for providing the service(violence, or threats in the case of the racket).
“the highest position in the society”. - the state
Sieben, there is someone specificwho does defense. And in order to be able to do it, he must fit my exploitation criterion. In which case the door is open for him to exploit instead of messing around as a market peon.
Forgive me, but I’m still unable to parse what you mean by either of those phrases. How do you believe demand can be created? And why is the state necessarily (in your view) the “highest position” in a society (presuming that we can even delineate one society from any other)? How do you believe any arbitrarily-delineated society must have certain “positions”, or any whatsoever?
Many exploitative doors are open to many entities in society. They don’t go down that route because its worse for them in the long term. Consumers will change companies that provide services they demand at marginal prices.
You have not countered the internet example, even after nir and I repeatedly pointed out through white-hat-hackers and installing programs on your hard drive, that internet PDAs also have the capability to exploit their customers, but don’t, becuase everyone would change PDAs.
Did you actually read Leeson’s paper, xarthaz? It critiques one potential institutional framework of a stateless society, specifically in which defense is still the service of a territorial monopoly. Leeson states repeatedly that private property anarchy is conceivable under some other form.
What is the value in this argument, mgmcintyre? We have the actual history to study to determine how states arose and how past anarchist societies, in one form or another, came under the dominion of states. We are never going to return to pre-civilization. Should we return to pre-civilization, in which all cultural and institutional history is lost, then I wouldn’t be surprised if we see much the same result after 5000 years of progress.
But what does this tell us about the future, in which there does exist 5000 years of legal and social history? In which economics is a developed science, the ideas of private property and contract are embedded in culture, millions are cognizant of game theory, transaction costs are severely lower than they once were, etc?
And, of course, that states have formed over time and still exist today does not mean that states are the ‘end-product’ or ‘most probable result’ or ‘best result’ of society, any more than man as he currently exists is the end-product or the best result of biological evolution.
One quick note. I am not excluding the possibility of “righteous defenders” or “ideological actors.” As value is purely subjective, exploitable material wealth may not necessarily be more valuable than defense. However from a pure profit standpoint, defense must always be “worth” less than the wealth it is protecting or else it is not needed.
Sieben, it does not in reality meet the conditions of my exploitation model. It is passive, not active defense. I did not dispute the viability of non-exploitative passive defense
Well it kind of is… its offering software that is installed on your hard drive that could access all your documents in order to prevent software from being installed on your hard drive that could access all your documents.
If an anti-state argument is to be logically consistent, it cannot simply argue that the natural order always leads to anarchy, as this is plainly refuted by the facts.
There are at least two aspects every pro-anarchy (and anti-anarchy) argument must address:
Time. It is obvious that, for instance, private courts could not develop overnight. It takes time for society to organize itself. The pro- side may need to explain how society can develop the right “machinery of freedom” before the looting forces take over and the state re-forms. The anti- side must avoid neglecting the fact that institutions do develop over time, hence it is not enough for them to argue against anarchic conditions as they may prevail (or have prevailed) in a total state of nature.
The character and circumstance of the individuals in society. Plainly some societies of some types of people faced with certain circumstances do not end up forming stable anarchies, and few have in the past, so the pro- side must address this. Yet to decisively rule out anarchy, the anti- side must address why there are no characteristics of the individuals involved and of their environments that could allow anarchy to work. Particularly, see Sieben’s point above about technologies for coordinating action. See the Internet. See the link in my sig.
A fair criticism of many anarchist thinkers so far is that they have ignored these elements as well. Let’s start from a clean slate here and simply reason from what we know.
What is the value in this argument, mgmcintyre? - I knew someone would say this. you make a valid point. I would argue though that I did provide a logical argument for the case that private defense agencies could not, or would not ever exist due to the unique nature of the product they produce and some other points. I don’t think its a foul to point out the one trial we have has shown the outcome my theory would predict. Sure its not proof, but hey, its better than nothing.
does not mean that states are the ‘end-product’ - I don’t see how we get past the basic problem.
If (net social spending on defense/govt) is greater than (net prevented loses to exploitation) than the defensive providers are exploitative and necessarily provided by monopolist exploiters. If (net social spending on defenses) is less than (net loses prevented to exploitation), the defensive providers are in a competitive market and would gain by using force to become monopolist exploiters.
Then it wouldnt be a PDA, but a gun salesman/detection system placer/locksmith/…
where are you getting this from? can you put it in a syllogism.
if a pda has the know-how and the equipment which it could use to exploit some people, yet does not and only defends some people, then it is not a mere gun salesman/detection system placer/locksmith
How? The anti virus software on your computer could easily be patched by the company to steal from you. I explained before that I think internet PDAs have more danger of being monopolistic exploiters because at least in real life you can provide your own home defense.
And since man is rational, he does not hand all his swords to one of his fellows and hope for a good outcome. He instead pools his liability in one of many voluntary security options while maintaining his sovereignty, so that tyranny might be checked.
War of all against all is expensive and unproductive. There is a huge market incentive to avoid this situation… only the most uncreative minds think a free society is doomed to be nasty brutish and short. Thankfully the entrepreneurs do not give up so easily.
It rests on the ambiguity between offensive and defensive violence. PDA-s use violence which is an exploitative service(note this idea is apparently totally different from mcintyre’s O_o ).
If A hires C to use action on B to prevent the same action being used by B on A, it is exploitative business(C exploiting A).
