Hi everybody, I made a previous thread on pretty much the smae subject, but I only got 1 reply, so I think it may not have been very clear.
Suppose a part or several parts of the world become anarchic for a period of time and assume that foreign or neihgbouring states by some miracle do not interfere or try to occupy these territories.
Do you think people living in these areas would try to reform states? Moreover, do you think the local populations would try to support these developments?
Also, is anarchy all one would require for something like Private Defense Agencies to form in these areas? Or do you feel it is far more likely Mafia and protection rackets would run rampant?
Does the question of what happens depend on other factors? For example, the current system survives despite its economic flaws and inveitable bankruptcy because people believe wholeheartedly in the ideology of the state and this is what is propogated through the education system.
Could the formation of anarchic orders that are not completely uncivillised require the propogation of similiar degrees of education and understanding of Economics, especially regarding the provision of security and justice?
If so, should this become an immediate goal of all anarchocapitalists, to do their part, as much as possible to inform the public of this truth and these logical arguments with which it is reached, so that when the time comes and the western welfare states do absolutely collapse, people at least have a chance to prevent an utter dark age emerging on the other end?
The first thing that comes to my mind is how the population would support itself, assuming that the area is supported by an import/export economy. Assuming the infrastructure of the area isn’t kept up, imports couldn’t enter the area and people would ultimately starve.
PDA’s would run rampant, as the desperate people seek for some kind of protection. Any mafia leader could enter the area, with imported weapons, and even monopolize the area’s defense.
With such a low standard of living, the people would look for any kind of stable food/shelter. Many would leave into the borders of stable countries, or companies from foreign companies would come in and exploit their desperation for easy labor.
tl;dr: not a good situation. Either the entire world goes anarchy or the state remains but possesses a fully free market.
Mafia only thrives by buying off the cops and providing superior service (and pricing) compared to other groups.
As far as the rest, too long, too much conjecture required. No one knows what anarchy will look like, if they did, they would be capable of planning an economy, and we already know that is not possible.
1: Telephone poles collapse, roads/bridges damaged/eroded, airports abandoned etc. Just big business things that are no longer maintained by big business.
2: Lawlessness + Desperate people + Weapon imports = powder keg for protection exploitation
3: People are scared by being vulnerable to attack. Protection, at first, would sell like hot cakes.
4: They offer protection/defense, which would be in an exponentially high demand. Mafia lords could either fight for power in certain areas or even monopolize power over all other defense organizations.
5: Loss of government AND a big business from a large population like an entire country will cause some kind of uproar, crime at the VERY least. That’s sure to lower the standard of living by at least a little, no?
6: Workers, without any local companies to depend on, may look beyond the borders for stable companies with stable wages and stable benefits. A man working minimum wage with health insurance in a country of wageless and uninsured people would be “ahead” socially.
Why wouldn’t private individuals homestead and maintain this infrastructure for profit?
Why would there be lawlessness?
If you have ever lived in rural areas, people are not scared of there not being cops everywhere.
So economic freedom and no taxation or regulation wouldn’t spur development and production?
Sure, there may be some arbitrage, but health insurance is a farce. In most cases, it is just a pre-payment plan, not legitimate major medical. Unregulated areas are going to have more, and cheaper treatment options.
No, your responses lead me to believe you don’t actually believe freedom can work. That markets are more dangerous than central planning.
Why do you assume big business will leave when government does? Business will remain, so long as there is profit to be made. As long as there are people in this anarchic area with unsatisfied wants, business will remain.
Lol. Simply stating that there will be ‘lawlessness’, ‘desperate people’ and ‘weapon imports’ and that these three magically appearing factors will magically lead to chaos isnt good enough, I’m afraid. Try backing up statements with substance as opposed to vague, unsupported scary sounding nonsense.
First, I thought all business had left? Second, why isnt a gun and the knowledge of how to use it enough? Third, assuming it does, so what? Why is the purchase of protection a bad thing?
Your theory goes as follows:
A) There will be competition for protection, but the only competitors will be ‘mafia lords’ (whatever the heck that means) for some reason apparently only known to you.
B) This competition will then bring a monopoly of evil mafia types.
Perhaps you ought to rethink your ideas.
Again, why the loss of big business? And if you assume that the loss of a coercive monopoly is a bad thing, why are you bitching about these mafia lords?
Because know that all local business would immediately explode, upon loss of government.
Yeah, that’s crazy.
Believing that people who advocate a system which must limit individual freedom to some degree, are not believers in 100% freedom.
You redefine “freedom” to suit your ideology; all ideas of freedom have parameters, even the anarcho-capitalist one. I can also play the redefining game: anarcho-capitalism does not believe in freedom because it denies me the capability of killing as I so desire!
'Course, anarchy is about voluntary limitations and cooperation. That’s the difference.
As for anarchy “breaking out” (like some sort of rash ^_^) if it was the result of an educated movement to abolish the government (ideally peacefully, anyway) then I don’t see why it would immediately fall to pieces. Hell, the anarchists in Spain were dealing with a largely illiterate population and managed to self-organize at least for a time.
The freedom of the other person to kill you without restraints. In addition, your belief that someone has the freedom to life is nothing other than a metaphysical judgment of value.
Why not? The latter is the only way the former will work.
I’m actually starting to read Orwell’s Homage To Catalonia so maybe we’ll see. From what else I’ve read they were probably preferable to the alternatives present in Spain at the time.
It must be granted though that Lam is a bit funnier since he both fancies himself a wise skeptical philosopher and at the same time he believes any nonsense his religious masters tell him to believe.