Ntalaie,
And I suggest to Sasquatch that he has to read immediately mises.org .
How is this a safe assumption when the Economic Calculation Problem applies equally to all forms of government and non-government entities? That’s what one would call a non sequitur…
Other than the whole monopoly services argument that would make it impossible for a limited government to calculate absent competition.
Once you admit that some competition is good (to ensure they are able to operate efficiently and derive prices) then where do you draw your line between the ‘necessary’ compulsory services and the merely ‘optional’ competiting services?
Why would you succeed at limiting government when every society in history which tried to do such failed miserably? Surely the American experiment, which went from one of the smallest governments in the world to by far the largest in the world in just 200 years, would convince you that such limitations are not possible?
Liberty cannot be maintained by governments and cannot exist so long as governments do.
Government is the monopoly of the lawful use of coercion. Anarchy promotes the abolishment of government. Therefore anarchy promotes competition for the power of coercion. I don’t imagine that these groups will play nice [;)].
The right to life is inalienable. A market cannot exist for something that is incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another. Rights are either respected or disrespected, justice is the absense of injustice, and a competition for the recognition (protection) of the right to life is a conflict of interest.
First of all, what did you read in Chaos Theory that you find so objectionable? Do you have a criticism of any specific argument?
You should read all of Chaos Theory for starters to see some common arguments as to how private law could work in the absence of government. A system with no government would entail competition in the services which government currently monopolizes, namely law and defense. I think a better definition of government would be one that Hoppe proposes in The Myth of National Defense, “a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent.”
This argument of yours seems to be based on a semantic hangup. It’s not a market for “life”, it’s a market for defense services. You can’t buy and sell life, I agree, but what you can do is pay someone to protect you from aggression.
That’s not accurate. Anarchy makes the right of self-defense - the ability to resist coercion - available to everyone. Defense is not coercion.
Then you need to broaden your imagination.
It has nothing to do with the right to life. There is no such thing, except as life exists as a facet of self-ownership; that is, I OWN MY LIFE. People have the right not to have their self-ownership infringed upon, and they can and do delegate the protection of that right to other people.
No. A market exists for anything that one person wishes to sell and another wishes to buy. If I wish to buy the protection of my person and property from another person or a group of persons, neither you nor any government has any right to prohibit me from doing so. Such a prohibition in itself denies my self-ownership. Nor can a person whose “protection” is forced upon him against his will be said to own himself.
Irrelevant.
Justice exists entirely in the payment of debts. When an injustice (that is, an initiation of force or an infringement of self-ownership, such as prohibiting a person from defending himself from aggression as he sees fit) occurs, justice means that whatever damage is done is repaid. The lack of injustice is a neutral state.
Consider this scenario:
- Only one institution has the right to provide justice: Organization A.
If you are accused of having broken the rules of Organization A, you are arrested by Organization A’s employees, who then force you to go an office operated by Organization A, to have a bureaucrat paid by Organization A decide whether or not you broke the rules of Organization A. If you disagree with the decision of the employee of Organization A you get to go to another office of Organization A to decide whether Organization A was correct in their decision. Organization A further gets to decide how much you pay them. If you are found to be in the wrong, Organization A decides how much you owe them for telling you so, and how much as a penalty for your crime. If you are found to be in the right, Organization A decides how much you owe them for telling you so, but at least there’s no penalty. Oh, and Organization A’s employees who wronged you get a few week’s paid leave for what they did.
That, my friend, is a conflict of interests.
If, on the other hand, you are free to choose Organization B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I . . . X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI . . . etc. as an arbitor between yourself and Organization A, then Organization A doesn’t get away with that so easily. Either they change the way they provide justice, or they go right the hell out of business.
Ron Paul proposes a small general tariff that funds only Constitutionally authorized programs. Personally I agree with Walter Block in that a government that governs least is good and less is better so a government that governs 0 is best.
You have a rather unique and comical way of debating that I have not encountered before. You took something I said in my earlier post out of context, questioned me for a further explanation of it, and are now attempting to refute that explanation by ignoring the original context. If you go back and reread my post in the full context, you will clearly see that I have differentiated between the protection of a right, and the protection of the fruit of that right. My objection to Chaos Theory is anarchy.
There’s no need to be rude. I apologize if I took what you said out of context. Let me try again. If i take you out of context again, it’d be constructive for you to point out exactly where so I can be sure i know where you’re coming from.
You are claiming that a market cannot exist for the right to life, correct? My response is that nobody is saying a market should be created for the ‘right to life’, but for services that defend peoples’ life and well being. I assume you think that means I took you out of context because you said this:
But I wasn’t taking you out of context, I was disagreeing with this unbacked assertion of yours. Please explain why a market for the protection of such rights cannot exist. A thief is clearly violating someone’s property rights. A market could exist for the prevention of theft. A murderer is clearly violating someone’s right to life. A market could exist for the prevention of murder. Where am I wrong here? If i understand your logic, you’re saying a market can’t exist for either of these things. Why not?
If you’re really interested in having a discussion it’d be helpful for you to elaborate.
This is nonsense. It advocates a choice in the matter of whom will provide you with protection, law and order. And please do not say a monopoly is needed to resolve differences in opinion. That is just to impose one party’s will over the other’s, not to resolve it in any way.
The market is for protection, for law and for order, which are services that must be produced. There is no right to having a right enforced as there are no positive rights. How a right is enforced is up to you to figure out and arrange for.
-Jon
Not picking on you MacFall, but I disagree. We always have our rights. We can always resist coercion. We choose not to based upon our perception of the consequences of resistance.
In a sense, sasquatch is right. Anarchy just means there is no monopoly on violence.
You summed up the problem with anarchy in a nutshell right here when you said “as I see fit.” There are nearly as many opinions on what “fit” is as there are individuals, and therein lies the problem with anarchy. So a disagreement arises on whether an infringement occurs and to what extent. Your contention is that the parties involved in every such disagreement will somehow always come to an agreement on which of the seemingly endless arbiters to decide the case? What if in your example organization A has little respect for the life of individuals, zero tolerance for those accused of breaking their rules, assumes you are guilty until proven innocent (but doesn’t feel like being bothered by giving you that opportunity), and doesn’t give a shit about what outsiders think since maybe they are well-armed plunderers.
Again I’m not talking about using the government to actually protect people or to protect property; you are correct in saying that those functions can be handled by the market. My contention is that the protection of the rights of individuals is a legitimate role of government. That is to say there is a fundamental difference between having your property or your life protected and having your rights protected. In the absence of government, the definition of rights become arbitrary and are the whim of adversaries.
I’ve seen you post this idea a few times so i’d like to throw in my two cents and see what you think.
From my perspective, coercion is ‘use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.’ I completely agree with you, we always have a choice, we can resist coercion. I think this is just a semantic difference though, because when i sort of have ‘without coercion’ built into the definition of ‘acting freely’. So sure, you can always act even against the threat of coercion, but you’re not really acting freely. I feel like the debates you start with people on this topic are based on the fact that they assume a lack of coercion when they talk about free action and you don’t.
Anarchy is the lack of institutionalized coercion. Sure, we can always fight against coercion, even when it’s institutionalized, but anarchy puts us in a setting where we can choose between competing agencies to act to protect our rights for us, and its in their best interest to minimize coercion so people can act freely to a greater extent.
I went today to pay taxes for Chacao municipality in Caracas, Venezuela, required for the business I work for.
You might have read the poll stating that Chacao is considered by an international organization whose name I do not remember at this time as the best run municipality in the Americas, and the third best run municipality in the world. Maybe they are exagerating, but definitely the taxes are transformed into services for the people. I saw everybody really happy (including myself) forming their line to pay their taxes. Schools and hospitals are being built, police is courteous, there are no rumours of corruption in Chacao.
So sometimes governments work and sometimes people like paying their taxes voluntarily because those taxes functions similarly as privately delivered services. Especially when local governments compete against neighboring municipalities to attract competing businesses or neighbors.
So you’re saying that because there are a large number of different opinions this constitutes a reason to limit choice? Sounds a bit odd to me.
Then they’d quickly go out of buisness.
Although, “little respect for individuals”, “guilty until proven innocent” and “well - armed plunderers” that sounds somewhat familiar to me, any idea where I’ve heard that before?
So you’re saying that the role of an institution that by it’s very nature violates property rights, is to protect property rights? How strange.
And remind me again, what rights are these? Property rights perhaps?
This perfectly explains why municipal governments should bear a larger responsibility, and the federal government can be smaller. That way, those of us with a brain can move to a municipality with virtually no taxes and actually be RESPONSIBLE for ourselves and spend our money the best way we see fit. This would only work because we actually believe that we know best what to do with our money, not some higher government authority.
the school seems to cut government spending so much that a simple revenue tariff can fund those things
I do not find it ethical to fund a government solely through the expenditures on vice (gambling, alcohol and cigarette taxes, etc) of citizens who would then be persuaded by the rest of “virtuous” citizens to indulge further in their vice so that the government earns more revenue. It might be funny, but it does not sound ethical or compassionate.
Jonathan,
I am glad we finally agree on something! In a previous post you asserted that Venezuela is a socialist country that deserves to be sanctioned. There are many other municipalities within the country besides Chacao that at the local level, and against the huge opposition of the red federal regime, are trying with different degrees of success to achieve exactly what you are proposing. It is for that reason that I am asking for understanding from abroad on the challenges that those of us who want freedom and prosperity are faced with.
In late November there are nationwide elections to renew municipalities and state governments. Chávez is scared because the polls are predicting that the progressive opposition will get back significant jurisdictions, which should hopefully force him to limit his obscene red rethoric. I hope you become interested in following this process of change and see if there is a way that you can ideologically support us in this fight for freedom. Thank you in advance.
I honestly do not know. Does anybody know how to draw that line? I just made a guess when I wrote 2 or 3%. I am not even claiming that my guess is an educated one.