So how exactly would you ensure that these private military corporations and volunteer groups wouldn’t wage warfare over more territory? or become states themselves? What is preventing people from Civil War without a State such as ours?
In the Anarchic society of Tribal England, civil conflict was the norm among the Celts, Jutes, and other tribes. In a world of Private Property rights, why wouldn’t land owners engage in conflict to obtain more land?
They could, but without the ability to tax or conscript, it becomes rather difficult–especially to drain your own capital.
Straw man. Anarcho-capitalism doesn’t guarantee that there would be no crime.
There are no guarantees in life. Economists strive to understand the consequences of incentives on human action.
So a better question to this (and some of your other threads) is what would cause such a thing to happen in a free market? What incentives are there for violence over negotiation? Slavery over co-operation?
What reason would people have to engage in civil war without a state to fight over?
Other peaceful people wouldn’t recognize their title. They might face ostracism and exclusion. Really, you need to show why people would choose conflict first as a means to solve property disputes, and that means weighing the consequences of using violence in a civil society. Right now, we don’t recognize robbers or murderers as legitimate parties (with the exception of the state), so why would that change under an anarchic society?
Ultimately, all excuses for violence, rest in consent. If we believe it is ok for John to steal Mark’s land, then it is. If we do not accept stealing by anyone, including John, then it is VERY EXPENSIVE for John to pursue this impermissible behaviour. We all have an interest in maintaining order. The question is, what do we call order? Forced taxation, conscription, and socialized property? Or voluntary trade, competitve defense and private property?
Nothing, absolutely nothing!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Oh, wait:
Probably the most popular argument against libertarian anarchy is: well, what happens if (and this is Ayn Rand’s famous argument) I think you’ve violated my rights and you think you haven’t, so I call up my protection agency, and you call up your protection agency – why won’t they just do battle? What guarantees that they won’t do battle?To which, of course, the answer is: well, nothing guarantees they won’t do battle. Human beings have free will. They can do all kinds of crazy things. They might go to battle. Likewise, George Bush might decide to push the nuclear button tomorrow. They might do all sorts of things.
The question is: what’s likely? Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, “I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!” But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, “I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence.” Whereas, governments – first of all, they’ve got captive customers, they can’t go anywhere else – but since they’re taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don’t have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can. - Long
The above assumptions about human nature (and actions) seem borderline utopian to me. Perhaps after 50k more years of evolution we could revisit them. Communism would also work ONLY if everyone actually “worked according to their abilities and consumed according to their needs (but not more than that)”, and everyone was genuinely nice to one another. In my opinion, the existence of free markets and the absence of governmental enforcement of laws does not automatically turn people into angels who would put morals and ethics at the top of their priority list (“We all have an interest in maintaining order”). As for what incentives there possibly could be for violence over negotiation, simply pick up any history textbook. Seems like minarchy is more realistic in evaluating human nature, hence more willing to compromise some freedoms to the state and get assurance for protection of rights in return. Just seems like a good bargain at this point of human evolution.
Z.
“We are not envisioning any Utopia, in which no man ever tries to victimize another. As long as men are human, they will be free to choose to act in an irrational and immoral manner against their fellows, and there will probably always be some who act as brutes, inflicting their will upon others by force. What we are proposing is a system for dealing with such men which is far superior to our present governmental one — a system which makes the violation of human liberty far more difficult and less rewarding for all who want to live as brutes, and downright impossible for those who want to be politicians.”
-Tannehill and Tannehill
The ideas that states can be abolished, and that everybody will proceed to be good anarchist citizens is certainly utopian.
Indeed. And you let me know the minute someone here advances such a Utopian idea, ok?
I would argue that a minarchy (limited government solely for the protection of rights and enforcement of laws) would be far superior to an anarchy in which groups are free to organize and bully others indiscriminately. Where do we get the assumption that it would be more lucrative and beneficial for a group or an individual to produce wealth honestly as opposed to just stealing it from someone else in a system with no law enforcement? I know we’re all hypothesizing here but still there are some pretty strong “cumbayah” assumptions being made here about human nature.
Z.
Actually, the Austrian position is that socialism can’t work well even if everyone buys into the system because it can’t calculate economically.
I’d rather appeal to your sense of reason. Why do you not use violence to get what you want? Why do you not steal? Is it only because you fear reprisal and consequences, and without a state, you would be violent and a thief?
Minarchy is actually the truly Utopian position. It mantains that a government with absolute monopoly power of law and enforcement, can be kept small. First, an appeal to history shows this to be false. Governments grow until they collapse. Second, the incentives for government (more money, more power, more resources) are aligned towards growth. Government doesn’t get a reward for being small, whereas private firms have an incentive to be efficient. One, in order to maximize profit, and two to maximize market share vs. competition.
Some folks prefer minarchism. I say, if it is immoral to steal a lot, it is still immoral to steal a little. The only minarchy I can get behind, is one that is joined voluntarily.
Not at all. But you will have to point them out explicitly please. Just calling them “cumbayah” isn’t the same as making an argument.
One is not required to be an angel to do a cost/benefit analysis and realize aggression is personally costly without a state backstop. Further, even a thoroughgoing egoist can quickly surmise the personal advantages of cooperation and other pro-social behaviors in a truly free market. No altruism is necessary. The incentive for negotiation over violence is simply rational self-interest until monopoly government is involved.
Finally, you’ll note in studying history that states have been the root cause of the grand majority of violence throughout time.
I agree, but my point wasn’t that everyone had to buy into it for it to be working. Socialism doesn’t “calculate economically” exactly because its utopian assumptions about human nature produce a mangled incentives scheme that’s unsustainable in reality.
I’m sorry but I have traveled this planet and I can assure you that posters here (with all of their pondering of deep sociological, philosophical, moral and ethical repercussions of human action) do NOT represent your average human being out there – not even close. There’s so much fraud, crime, violence, and injustice in this world of laws and law enforcement, as it is. What makes you think that things would get better if the laws and their enforcement were removed?
Those are wide brush strokes. Minarchy has never been tried so we can’t judge how or whether it would metastasize into a socialist state. I believe there is a whole universe of societal, legal, and economical structures and incentives schemes that have never been tried and that would be more optimal than pure anarchy. We, as mankind, just have to keep plugging at it until we nail the right balance.
Perhaps something we can work with. It is conceivable in an anarchy that a large group would voluntarily pool resources into a common legal system and a protection force as a most efficient way of ensuring their freedom. That would allow new members to voluntarily join, as well. It is also conceivable that you too may also choose to join after an encounter with a bully group that bashed your teeth and stole your bag of gold on the way back from the market. You’d eventually realize that perfect ideals are a luxury in an imperfect world. Or maybe you won’t and that’d be OK too. Somehow I think that most people would prefer to make that bargain, but I could be wrong.
Z.
Then any form of anarchism is simply untenable - an idea that could never possibly be put into action.
This is as naive as saying guns kill people.
Well, socialism doesn’t calculate because it is a bad system. Even if everyone goes along with it, and even if human nature was conducive to it, there is still a knowledge problem. It is not possible to centrally plan complicated systems efficiently.
You would be surprised how many of us have traveled as well. [;)] As far as “posters here”, we’re simply reflecting an enormous amount of scholarship done over the last several centuries. The ideas presented here are not exclusive to this forum.
Next, you avoided answering my question. Why are you superior to the average human? What makes you superior (presuming that you would not commit violence or steal in the absence of law enforcement)?
Sure. The American republic.
Well, you will certainly find folks to discuss those ideas with here at mises.org.
I have to disagree. There is no acceptable level of pre-emptive violence. Your ethics may differ.
Yeah, that is just a lot of speculation at this point. As an individualist, I’m not so much concerned with how you perceive the world’s problems, as whether or not you think that gives you the moral authority to be violent with me.
If you and I meet in a dark alley with no one else around and I have gold and no weapons, and you have weapons and want my gold, are you going to use violence to take my property?
If not, then there just might be hope for humanity since I don’t think you’re uniquely civil.
And if so, then I don’t think you have an interest in peace.
Fantastic non-sequitur!
No, “limited” governments are what is borderline utopian and there is zero reason to expect them to act unlike every other legal monopoly (all of which they facilitate/enable.) The truth of the matter is that not allowing polycentric gov’t because of some fetishistic belief that only a monopoly can provide justice ends up “proving” the argument circularly, and ultimately will do nothing to stave off deviation from the State as it falls into ever worsening crises and even 1st world governments begin to resemble tin pot dictatorships. And I’m not even assuming people are nice or perfectly ‘rational’ (whatever that’d mean); no need to, because a monopoly will compound any problems that exist.
You continue believing that, then.