if A hires C to use action on B to take back a TV that B had stolen from A, what is ‘exploitative’ about C?
As has been repeatedly argued, this does not matter in the slightest. Companies lose customers they screw over. There is also the internet example which you keep claiming does not have this property, but which in fact really does… white hat hackers… third party software installation etc…
Is it really exploitative if C is charging A the marginal cost of the service? If it were exploitative, don’t you think there would be a huge demand for non exploitative arrangements?
Indeed, that was my point in my earlier post. Since neither mgmcintyre nor xarthaz seem to have elucidated what they mean by “exploitation”, I can only try to infer what they mean by it. As far as I can tell, they seem to mean “getting away with fraud or aggression against someone else”. In that case, there’s no reason why defensive-service employees would be the only ones to pursue fraud and/or aggression. Plenty of other people could do the same. One example that stands out to me is home repairmen. After all, you usually have to let them inside to do their work, at which point they can put a gun to your head and demand all your money. I’m sure this has actually happened in the past.
Despite the fact that we all live under a state, extra-state fraud and aggression still happen. Sometimes it’s systematic. An obvious example here is the Mafia. Of course, the state tries to crowd them out, but the crowding-out is never perfect and never guaranteed.
Quite right. Both mgmcintyre and xarthaz are completely discounting the probability that people will behave according to their sense of morals/ethics, again as I pointed out earlier. Given the fact that morals and ethics are significant factors in human behavior (to say the least), I don’t see how they can discount them with any credibility.
On another note: if mgmcintyre and xarthaz’s apparent view of human behavior were correct, then modern civilization as we know it could not exist, as we’d be too busy always looking for opportunities to exploit each other, and hence it would always be a Hobbesian “war of all against all”. The only possible way to prevent that would be to somehow erect a totalitarian panopticon system, but that would require substantial and systematic cooperation of the kind that couldn’t arise due to what I already mentioned. So it seems as though their apparent view of human behavior is inherently contradictory!
On the other hand, the defense agency might be a money-losing operation funded by a conglommeration of merchants and businessmen, who invest in the private security agency for the protection, but never expect their firm to earn a profit. Much like the early turnpikes, which were funded by businessmen who saw the need for viable roads, but didn’t necessarily earn a profit from the turnpikes.
Also, one could point to the cattlemen’s associations of the American frontier, and their establishing of private law enforcement agencies:
Quoted from the article linked above: “The market-based enforcement agencies of the cattlemen’s frontier were different from modern private enforcement firms in that the earlier versions evidently enforced their own laws much of the time rather than serving as simply an extension of the government’s police force. An often expressed concern about this type of enforcement is that (1) the enforcement will be ineffective or (2) the enforcement agencies will themselves become large-scale organizations that use their power to infringe upon individual rights. We have argued above that there is little reason to believe that the first concern is justified. It also appears that the second concern is not supported by the experience of the American West. Major economies of scale did not seem to exist in either enforcement or crime. Although there are numerous records of gunslingers making themselves available for hire, we find no record of these gunslingers discovering that it was even more profitable to band together and form a super-defense agency that sold protection and rode roughshod over private property rights.”
Quite right. Both mgmcintyre and xarthaz are completely discounting the probability that people will behave according to their sense of morals/ethics, again as I pointed out earlier. Given the fact that morals and ethics are significant factors in human behavior (to say the least), I don’t see how they can discount them with any credibility.
from earlier posts:
This does not negate the possibility of a “righteous defender.” An defense-provider who, for whatever reason, values their own sense of justice/fairness/morality/etc. higher than the total possible exploitable wealth. In fact there have been many instances of such groups. However, this cannot be relied upon as a theoretical basis for security in a stateless society. But in our own lives, in our own generation, we could become “righteous defenders” by ousting the exploiters amongst us and setting up a system we find just .. I would classify the American revolutionaries as such individuals, in general.
and
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 cost less than the wealth it is protecting or else it is not needed.
I agree we should ignore charitable actors since any system will not suffer incentive problems in their presence.
In developed countries, where access to resource is abundant, this wouldnt nearly be as big of a problem if we just ended the drug war.
And if we could get Greenpeace of their “frankenfood” kick we could feed the undeveloped countries, lessening the defense problem there.
It would seem to me the way to end most wars is to open up access to resource around the world…
then it’s just a matter of calming people’s zealotry.
I’m not convinced competition would be able to stop the rogue agency from contracting other agencies not to stop it’s territoial expansion. Nor am I convinced a non-constitutional (and how do you enforce a constitution w/o a state) society could enforce anarchism as the “law of the land.”
But these two things could help alleviate the problem.
I suppose it is true that if the cost of defending are less than attacking, such that that smaller prize represents a greater profit, than this would not be a problem. By then you would wonder why the original attackers would even bother … you come back to this problem which i stated earlier:
“You see, before defense is ever needed in society it must be the case that all currently existing users of force are exploiters. What you are arguing is that as soon as there exists one or more aggressive exploiter using force, the next group to develop the capability to defeat them should go into the defense industry … this is the most profitable way to use the new capability in the anarchist view. But why not just exploit the individuals that the original aggressors were exploiting? How are you better off trading with them instead. The use of force need not be mutually beneficial to be profitable.”
Let me see if I can put this very clearly. I’ve created a PDA. I have X amount of employees. x is the average extra amount I have to pay my employees to take on the risk of being outlawed by the current customary legal system. I can exploit Y amount of people, or I can defend Z amount of people. Y people make Y’ amount of money. Z people make Z’ income. Y people will resist at y average cost to being exploited. Z people won’t resist because it’s voluntary. F is the number of firms who have made the calculation that exploitation is more profitable than defense. F firms will challenge in order to exploit the same people at f average cost. D is the number of other firms who have made the calculation that defense is more profitable than exploitation. D firms will challenge exploiters at d average cost. Z people will pay z’ percentage of income for defense. You will be able to take y’ percentage of income from Y.
You have to show it is likely that Y’y’-Yy-Ff-Dd-X*x > Z’z’-Ff
I wanted to re-post what I thought was my best attempt to explain my position, Much was added to this as time went on, but the basic points are all here. This combined with the OP which is similar. Just in case anyone else comes along who wants to comment on the main topic. Thanks again for good comments:
-------------------
I’m sure you are all familiar with the basic justification for private defense agencies. Namely, that in goods production monopolies lead to higher prices and lower quality. This axiom applies also to the production of defense/protection. Additionally, any non-profit seeking ‘Public Defense Agency’ will face a calculation problem, namely how much total to spend on defense and also how best to allocate the allotted funds. Thus competing, profit-seeking, private-defense firms are preferable to a monopolist public defender.
But sometimes monopolies are a good thing. Hoppe says, in his critique of democracy, that we do not want competition in the production of bads, only in the production of goods (thus free entry into politics is bad). Therefore, in order for Hoppe to remain consistent, he must conclude that the production of protection/defense is a good and not a bad.
But is it really possible to produce “defense?” What do you need to set up a defense agency? First you will need man power. Since you will be called on to deal with individuals who refuse to “follow the rules,” you will need a trained staff of professional fighters capable of defeating various levels of aggressors in no-holds-bared combat. These employees (solider?officers?) will need equipment, weapons, armor, transportation, communications, etc. But the question is, are all of these things actually “defense?”
Or is the defense agency really producing a capability to provide defense. Specifically, the capability to competently use force against non-cooperative “villains.”
A defense agency requires the same general setup as a similar agency built for the purpose of exploitation. Thus, only if such institutions are used exclusively for defense can they be considered a good. But will they be? The use of force differs from any other “good” in that it does not require a voluntary exchange to be profitable to the producer and thus does not need to be mutually beneficial, it need only be exerted by the stronger party.
Can an institution, capable of competently using force against others, profit more from selling defensive-services then it could by simply using force to exploit those who need protection?
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. How much would you be willing to pay for this service? Would you pay $50 to keep your $100? How about $99? $99.99? $100?
If you stand to loose everything from exploiters, a protector has no incentive to charge you any less than that, unless he is also a monopolist exploiter. (i.e. unless he is protecting you as a farmer protects his sheep … to enjoy exclusive benefit from the shearing/slaughtering.)
First off, you have not addressed my points from my earlier post, like you said you would do when you came back online. Is this deliberate?
Here you are still discounting morality and ethics as significant factors on human behavior. The reason for this (as I suspect you already know) is that people by and large behave according to their own moral and ethical values. After all, why don’t I steal as much as I can from Wal-Mart every time I go there? If I don’t, by your logic, I’m not exploiting the maximum amount of wealth possible. So it must follow that I value my own sense of “justice/fairness/morality/etc.” higher than “the total possible exploitable wealth”. I’d say that the vast majority of people behave the same way. Therefore I have to ask you to demonstrate that “this cannot be relied upon as a theoretical basis for security in a stateless society”. I hope I’ve made myself abundantly clear this time.
As you’ve probably noticed, I haven’t yet directly addressed your issue with profitability of private defensive services. Let me attempt to do so here.
One way around the alleged “profitability problem” is to use an insurance business model. I’m sure you already know how insurance works, so I won’t get into it here. But it’s obvious that insurance can be very profitable, yet still provide protective (dare I say defensive?) services for people. Perhaps it’s more likely that insurance businesses themselves would be the initial providers of defensive services; later on, as the division of labor becomes more complex, independent defensive-service providers could arise, which are then contracted out by the insurance businesses.
Don’t let the nomenclature of the US government fool you. Our non-profit corporations do in fact have profit… they just put it all towards their cause. A non profit PDA would have market prices and market revenues which they put they put towards furthering their cause.
They are not intrinsically defense or offense. It is in how they are used. Similarly, software is not intrinsically aggressive or defensive, but it is used by internet PDAs exclusively for defensive purposes because competition keeps them honest.
No one will patronize a PDA likely to tend towards exploitation. There is no demand for this kind of business.
The protector has a monopoly here, so he can charge the monopoly price. However, competition among protectors and/or purchasing of insurance alleviates this problem.
“You are hungry and have $100. Can I sell you pizza for $100?” Is there competition?
A monopolist exploiter charges the monopoly price. Maybe not in the short term but in the long term. A farmer maximizes the profit he gains from his animals by feeding and then slaughtering them. He gets the MOST he can from the chicken. States get the MOST they can from their citizens. If it were possible, a monopolist exploiter would outfit us all with shock collars and force us to work 80 hours per week.
The only solution is competition among protectors. You cannot explain why there competition will not keep them honest. You cannot explain why we do not observe monopolist exploitation in the internet despite its being a much harder industry to enter and quantify immediate damages for.
Just a couple quick comments.
Do you agree that there’s a difference between being moral/ethical and being charitable?
I think you contradict yourself up above. You first claim that defense cannot actually be produced (in an economic sense). Then you posit that defense is merely one kind of use of force. Presumably, then, use of force cannot be produced. But when you say “the use of force differs from any other ‘good’”, you are explicitly contradicting that notion. So which is it? Do you consider use of force, including defensive force, to be an economically producible good or not?
And perhaps you misunderstand Hoppe’s argument, which is necessarily ethical in nature. Defensive violence can cause harm to people and/or property, just like aggressive violence. As I tried to point out to xarthaz, the primary distinction between defensive and aggressive violence is temporal. A moral distinction can also be considered to exist, which is based on the temporal distinction. So with Hoppe’s distinction between the production of “goods” and the production of “bads”, he’s talking about what he considers to be moral “goods” vs. moral “bads”. His standard of morality does not have to be predicated such that any and all harm is bad (and I doubt that it is).
Sure… I just don’t want to talk about idealized moral or charitable behaviour. I’d rather show that the market works even when everyone is narrowly self interested.*
No one will patronize a PDA likely to tend towards exploitation. There is no demand for this kind of business.
well, there is no demand for getting raped either .. go tell rapists their services are not in demand.
mgmcintyre, if having competing PDAs is unstable and must lead to a monopoly PDA, why isn’t the same true for states? Why don’t we have a one-world-state?
@mgm: Hans Hoppe has demolished this argument at length, here. If you’re interested in seeing your argument challenged by one of the deepest thinkers alive today, I highly recommend you read it. Here’s the excerpt relevant to your argument:
… There is little use in quarreling over whether man is as bad and wolf-like as Hobbes supposes, except to note that Hobbes’s thesis obviously cannot mean that man is driven only and exclusively by aggressive instincts. If this were the case, mankind would have died out long ago. The fact that he did not demonstrates that man also possesses reason and is capable of constraining his natural impulses. … Can the institution of a state reduce aggressive behavior and promote peaceful cooperation, and thus provide for better private security and protection? .. Regardless of how bad men are, [an ultimate judge and peacemaker] —whether king, dictator, or elected president— is still one of them. Man’s nature is not transformed upon becoming [an ultimate judge and peacemaker].
You can also read another book that goes into greater depth on this subject, edited by Hoppe, here.
Clayton -
mgmcintyre, if having competing PDAs is unstable and must lead to a monopoly PDA, why isn’t the same true for states? Why don’t we have a one-world-state? - we seem to be trending that way. Apparently the eliminative competition stage takes a while.
@mgm: Hans Hoppe has demolished this argument at length, here. If you’re interested in seeing your argument challenged by one of the deepest thinkers alive today, I highly recommend you read it. Here’s the excerpt relevant to your argument: - Thanks, i will defiantly read it. Listening to Hoppes lectures on “Democracy: TGTF” was very enlightening.
People don’t pay rapists to do anything though… that’s the point. There is no business model that revolves around getting people to pay for protection and then turns around and rapes them.
People don’t pay rapists to do anything though… that’s the point. There is no business model that revolves around getting people to pay for protection and then turns around and rapes them.
There is a bussiness model that involeves stealing from people. “Hey, give me all of your stuff.” “No, I dont demand that service.” “Give me your stuff or I will kill you.” “What bussiness model are you using?” woosh, sound of head getting chopped off.
OR: “Give me all your stuff!” “I have a better idea, ill pay you half that to protect my stuff instead!” woosh, sound of head getting chopped off.
I repeat this from the above argument:
Thus, only if such institutions are used exclusively for defense can they be considered a good. But will they be? The use of force differs from any other “good” in that it does not require a voluntary exchange to be profitable to the producer and thus does not need to be mutually beneficial, it need only be exerted by the stronger party.