What would prevent warfare and all out civil war in Rothbard's Anarcho-Capitalist society?

Economics Economics Questions
181

Correct me if I’m wrong but, as I alluded in my post, for an anarchist, LAND is a type of property with some pretty amazing and unique (mostly law-making and law-enforcing) characteristics not attributable to food and shoes. In its best case scenario, anarchy assumes a planet of land-owners free to set up their own laws over their lands. (I don’t think owning a lot of shoes allows you to set any laws, under anarchy, right?) How is this different from a planet of medieval kingdoms in which each king (plus a lord, or a knight here and there) owns his land and sets up his own laws as the absolute ruler? Even if 1 billion (if 100 was too strong a case) people ended up being the land owners owning every square inch of this planet, under the anarchism’s best case scenario, would the remaining 5 billion (renters, squatters, sub-humans, “statists”, how shall me name them?) have ANY say about the laws of the societies in which they live and produce? How sustainable would that be from what you know about human nature, or just from experience as the planet seems to have already been there many hundreds of years ago?

Finally, if such (law-making and law-enforcing) premium was indeed given to LAND (via anarchism) as the ultimate property, wouldn’t you expect every remaining resource and asset on this planet to be directed toward acquisition of more LAND (just as it was in medieval times) and away from productive goals? I mean, what good are the $ millions my business is making if I owned no land, hence had no say about the laws in which my business and my life are conducted? I’d close my business and – since no one is willing to sell any land, of course – buy as many guns I can afford, hire as many goons I can afford and get me as much land as I possibly can, as only then I can bargain with other land owners (the only humans allowed to make and enforce laws) about how society should be organized. How does a society (or any group of agents) prosper under this set of assumptions?

Z.

182

Between choice 1 and 2 you’d be a fool to choose 1. However, those aren’t your only options so its just a false dichotomy.

If I (a property owner) want your business, I’m going to have to come to some mutual agreement with you (the business man). Obviously, such an agreement wouldn’t allow me to change the rules at my whim, just a landlords cannot just kick the tenants out or spike the rent.

You should compare cultures and economies of scale. But the fact remains that many businesses have started doing business in Somalia since the government fell. Compared to its neighbors, who are governed, Somalia is the better choice. See here, here, here, and listen here. Get Finland or Norway in a state of anarchy and then compare it.

Sounds fine, don’t think too many people here will disagree actually. You shouldn’t have freedom to do anything that you please. That doesn’t necessitate a state in any way though.

The land owners of course. They don’t have to sell. (There are also economic reasons why you wouldn’t want to own everything.)

1000 years ago the land had been stolen, just like now.

183

Correction: Property period allows for usage and discretion in openness towards the public. Land is not some masterful institution which tops all things. There are still other goods such as consumer goods, producer goods, and some anarchist believe in self-ownership

Well in theory you could. If you owned a great deal of shoes then you can dole them out on certain conditions to individuals. I think this is impractical though because the shoe market is vast and it is impossible for monopoly to formulate without government intervention in the market.

How is that question [ which I am taking to be a critique ] any different from government? Under anarchy, each individual would be the king or queen of their property. Individual sovereignty. Does this scare you?

Why do you liken renters to ‘sub-humans’? What is wrong with renting?

Define ‘productive goals’

How are you making business yet own no land? No one will trade with a millionaire under your system?

So you are only valuable when you are able to force people to recognize your own self-worth? How would you be any different then a petty criminal who commits crimes to show everyone how grand they are?

Well under your set of assumptions apparently only you prosper because somehow no one in the world would be happy to trade with a millionaire [ who by implication would have some kind of social network ] Congratulations, you’ve constructed a fantasy that has nothing to do with anarchism and you’ve crafted it not to work from the word go.

184

This is ridiculous. The state does not change its laws? Do you think Bob Higgs’ concept of regime uncertainty was inspired by the action of private businesses? I understand your point: a state has supreme control over the law, whereas in anarchy the law is dependent upon competing firms with competing interests. It does not follow, however, that the state cannot or will not change the law suddenly or frequently; nor does it follow that firms under anarchy will change the terms of their contracts willy-nilly.

We won’t get anywhere if you insist on comparing what could happen in an anarchist society with what you think should happen under a state. The key question is always, what is likely? Which is more likely to have a stable system of law and order: the state or an anarchist society? All else being equal, we can say the anarchist society, because firms in a competitive industry face greater market pressure than a monopolist. You’re definitely right that people want stability and security, which is why a firm that bucks the trend and starts ignoring its contractual obligations or the property rights of others will be severely punished by consumers. A monopolist, on the other hand, is better able to ignore the demands of the consumer (only to a degree, of course, as the people could revolt or ignore the monopolist en masse). If there is corruption in the legislature, or the police fail to solve a crime, or laws are suddenly violated or reversed, the most we can do in our present statist society is throw our arms up in the air and sigh. In anarchy, we could immediately disassociate ourselves from such a firm.

Businessmen will indeed compare the record of an anarchist society with the record of a statist society before setting up shop. Anarcho-capitalists have a good reason to believe the anarchist society will have a better track record. You’ve yet to provide a reason why the statist society will have a better record, only that it’s possible they have a better record. And that is certainly possible. Just, I would argue, not likely.

I also think, z, that you should stop talking of ‘freedom’ and ‘stability’ as if they are quantifiable goods. There is no quantum of freedom that you trade for a quantum of stability. Personally, I think freedom should be dropped from the discussion all together, because as your life-lesson of being tripped by a bully tells us, we all have the freedom to do whatever we have the ability to do. The question before us is this: given the power each individual retains through the control of his body, which system will best provide us with the society in which we would like to live? Which system will best discourage violence? Which will best respect the common human desire to act free of coercion?

EDIT: Sorry, just to drive this last point home: You do not “give up” your freedom in exchange for security. You still have the freedom to trip 5 year olds or cheat people, and the state does not stop these violent actions from occurring. You choose not to do these things because doing so is expensive. Even without law or any institutions, violence is costly, because you risk counterattack. Law and enforcement exist to make these violent actions prohibitively expensive. When you resign to the state, you do not exchange anything. Rather, you accept its rule in the belief that it is the best institution able to discourage violence. Yet you still retain the ability to kill, steal, trip, etc.

185

I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to /your/ freedom. As for me, I will continue to live by my own.

186

The dichotomy is true, I’m afraid. The land owner still sets the rules (laws) over his land. If not, he doesn’t really own the land, as liberty student correctly suggested. Agreements and contracts expire, and they’re also often broken if the penalty to the breaker is smaller than the benefit of breaking them (self-interest, first and foremost, right?). Landlords don’t have to renew leases and they most certainly should be able to get any rent the market would bear upon renewal of the lease.

I stopped after reading the abstract from the first link you provided: “In small communities that achieved internal law and order, their economy boomed in an unprecedented free-market environment, and the no-government situation has proven to be far better than the repressive government institutions and policies of Barré’s era. However, the economic expansion is chaotic and there is a strong new demand for an accountable and effective government that could provide essential public goods for sustainable economic development.”

So yes, no government is better than a tyrant foaming at his mouth. But look at the closing sentence. As for Finland and Norway, how (and why) do you “get” them away from where they chose to be? Does it look like anyone is holding them hostage under the systems they’ve democratically chosen for themselves? If not, then are you accusing them of being stupid or ignorant not to know what’s best for them?

Actually, quite a few posters here may disagree with you. I MUST have the freedom to do whatever I please on my own land, or else I can’t really say I own it.

You’re missing (AND making) my point here. No one would ever sell any land under anarchy because LAND is the ultimate and only way to set your own laws over your own dominion. If you want ANY freedom and the right to make others act in your interest and behalf you better own as much land as you possibly can and never, never sell. God forbid you become land-less. You’d be toast. Think about it.

Which opens up another interesting subject related to the line of land ownership. Can any of the anarchists (hence land owners) here show the purchase agreements their ancestors (or previous owners) made with the natives who occupied the Americas before Europeans got there? Knowing how shady these lineages of land ownership are, can I assume that might is always right in these matters? I mean, you only need to close your eyes and conveniently “forget” that very short period of time when you stole a piece of land from someone. It’s all smooth sailing, honest and proper, from there – papers, contracts, sovereignty, laws, and all that. Right?

Z.

187

If you (or anyone else) want to define “really own” as being able to do whatever then I won’t argue against it, as its vapid tautology. However, most here fully understand that rights are created through contract. Therefore the land owner does not have absolute power, even if he owns the land. Everything the landlord can do also comes at an expense. Breaking the contract loses the revenue generated by the business and damages the landowners reputation (possibly hurting future revenue). The landowner breaking the lease potentially does as much damage as the business breaking the lease. The business not renewing does as the landlord not renewing the lease. Its no different than trade. There are always alternatives, which drive down the cost (not just financially either) There simply isn’t an ultimate resource.

You need to continue reading… desperately.

Excellent. Soon you’ll understand that democracy is nothing more than “tyranny of the majority” and that every state formulation is just another form of tyranny.

“They chose to be?” That makes no sense. There is no they. There are individuals who live within the nation of Finland, that doesn’t equate choosing a system of government for themselves in any way. The system was in place before most were even born. Not all chose it or approve of it. If you lived under a “tyrant foaming at his mouth” did you, by lack of fleeing, choose to live there? Of course not. Did the Jews who didn’t flee Nazi Germany apparently chose the Nazi system for themselves. Nonsense. The blacks living in the southern U.S. between 1876 and 1965 chose to live under Jim Crow Laws. Heavens no. (You have presented a fallacy). And I have no qualms with accusing people of being ignorant.

Then they are totally, utterly, completely wrong. Even Rothbard acknowledged this.

If you want prosperity, renting, leasing, and selling is the better option. You’ve just assumed that all people are irrational want ultimate control over their land and would say damn all revenue. But without money, or some form of trade (contract) you’d be quite dead.

Your assumption is wrong. The better claim is the right claim. I don’t think there is a libertarian in the world who would say all current land is justly owned. So you aren’t really making any point whatsoever.

188

Excellent. We just agreed that the concept of freedom is not binary (i.e. you either have it, or you don’t). In reality, sometimes you have more, and sometimes you have less of it, but the only way you can have ALL of it is if you were the only human on this planet. Correct?

I wouldn’t even start about human rationality, as many a model (especially about financial markets) have been scrapped into the thrash-heap exactly because of their assumptions that humans act rationally most of the time. Quite to the contrary, human rationality is an exception, a mere flicker, a flash in the pan, and by no means something to be counted on over any period of time. It’s especially dangerous to hang the whole viability of your model (anarchism) on such a blatantly idealistic concept. But even if you assume rationality, you wouldn’t last long in an anarchist society unless you understand the special premium and power that land ownership holds under such a system.

Who decides which claim is better? If I claim this land is mine, don’t I also claim to have the best claim, by default?

Let me reiterate my main point (starting with the bloody nose onwards). You just admitted that there’s no such thing as IDEAL, 100%, TRUE FREEDOM. We all make compromises with respect to our freedom in order to achieve something else that we also find important (profit, prosperity, procreation, etc). Spouses limit their freedom by entering a marriage. Business people enter into contracts that limit their freedoms for the sake of a profit. Contracts, even when entered voluntarily/freely, ALWAYS limit your freedom, and NEVER increase it. Something like entropy, just in reverse. Short term contracts limit your freedom less. Long term ones limit your freedom more. Life-long contracts limit your freedom even more. Though not quantifiable, each of us TRADES some of our freedom for something else, all the time. We all get to choose our own poison, but no-poison is not an option. That’s life.

Now how does this ONE particular limitation of your freedom (contract) – an obligation to pay taxes to a government – end up being such a sore spot? What’s so special about THIS limitation that makes it different from ALL the rest? If I move to a country with a government/state, can’t I consider that to be just one more contract among the hundreds I’ve entered through my life – each of them limiting my freedom in SOME way? This contract – with well run countries – is somewhat renewable each 4 years through elections, and is always cancellable from my side by simply moving my business elsewhere. So what’s the big deal?

You’ll ask why even have contracts like that? I tried to explain that just like you on a personal level, societies also MUST limit freedom for the sake of something else. That else, is predictability and stability that come with establishing law and order. When uniform laws and enforcement are established over a critically large land area, then they are much less amenable to quick changes and volatility. It is exactly the part where each individual agent’s freedom is limited (the bad part) that produces the good aspects of stability. Those laws are a reflection of the people’s values and ideas on aggregate , thus not easily and drastically changed. The mass moves slower than each individual’s whim, situation, or preferences.

Complex systems of agents that are hard to model (such as humans) end up converging to states (pun intended) that are not immediately explainable by simple linear relationships. Anarchism simply fails to acknowledge this complexity. It also starts from a lot of axioms (non-provable by definition) about human nature that I simply find extremely difficult to accept.

Z.

189

Oh yes, poor you plagued to live in a world filled by irrational zombies. The horror. The absolute HORROR!

[8-)]

Do yourself a favour and refrain from relying upon ill-substantiated strawmen. What is ‘rationality’ anyway and what is ‘irrational’? Anything Mr Roboto disapproves of? Oh and yes, the endless blather about ‘complexity’. Well, let’s institute a monopoly on the provision of law, and brush all the problems under the rug now that we have our Final Decider TM in place. Oh and btw, about the ‘limiting’ of ‘freedom’ crap, how about we let individuals choose how much of their (and not others’) freedom to ‘limit’ and in what manner, k?

190

Metaphysically, yes. If you read in context, this confusion wouldn’t had been a point of contention at all.

Perfect. You’ve basically refuted your entire argument. The fact that people are irrationale makes the concept of a state even more horrendous. Irrationale people who can impose their irrationale rules on everyone else, (even the occasionally rationale fellow.) Brilliant! How could it fail? And your point of “no one ever” selling any land falls as well. Even if we accept your false premise for the sake of argument, the fact that people are irrational renders it moot.

An arbitrator.

You’ve mixed up political freedom with metaphysical freedom.

You certainly may view it as a contract. But no state has ever been set up in any such way. As I’ve already pointed out:

In short: Being born into slavery doesn’t make you a voluntary slave. Further, the U.S. in particular, you have no obligation to view the Constitution as a contract and nor should you. Finally, I Never agreed to any such contract - so case closed.

You are just rambling, none of what you’ve said necessitates a state given the fact that: 1. A state isn’t a society. 2. Laws existed before the state. 3. Laws can be enforced without the state. 4. Polycentric systems have existed and thrived. See here, here, here, here, and here. (And thats just to get started)

Don’t care for rhetoric. You’ve completely ignored history, economics, and spontaneous order yet you still managed to ruin your own argument. Sensational!

191

Not having the ABSOLUTE freedom to choose how to limit your freedom is merely another limitation to you freedom. Just one among the hundreds you will need to live and work with others around you. Nothing to get yourself worked up over too much.

Z.

192

Libertarians mean self ownership… you have the right to do what you will with your own property so long as it does not infringe on anyone else’s right to do so…

193

What’s “political” freedom in anarchy, and how does it differ from the metaphysical kind?

It’s getting repetitive to argue with responses such as: “fallacy”, “straw-man”, “rhetoric”, “rambling”, “not a proof”,. etc. (Btw, is there a manual somewhere that teaches how to field them as valid arguments?) – which are especially rich coming from proponents of a “theory” that’s 100% axioms/assumptions. As for who’s ignored history, there’s still a remote chance that you’re referring to a different planet than mine.

Z.

194

OK, so now you’re reduced to coming up with cute mantras about ‘absolute’ freedom. Who imposes this ‘limitation’ and pray tell why should I accept it? Hm? Social contract bullshit much?

195

Political freedom means absence of interference (aggression) metaphysical mean total freedom, which would include the freedom to aggress.

Imagine how we feel. Take a course in logic if you want to shape up.

And if you would actually read the links provided, you would know that similar anarchist arrangements have existed in history, so your claim that its 100% axioms/assumptions is just false.

196

It seems to me that Africa is full of Anarchies, and that we had Private-Property Anarchy in the Medievil times. Neither worked. How the heck do you disprove these?

197

by pointing out all the states in africa, including of course everywhere under a flag that has taxation and including also the mini-tribal-size-states