I mean, if you are going to refer to human behaviour, then you should be able to define what constitutes human behaviour. If that means listing all possible or likely manifestations, then absolutely. Just refering to human behaviour as some sort of singular idea that goes undefined does nothing to help us in this discussion.
You already have an answer to this. I will repeat myself, why would violence and stealing be optimal?
Well this would be the utilitarian approach.
I thought Laughing Man was fairly clear: That freedom of movement is a non-violent easy way to check an organization’s power. To extend his point: It becomes an even easier check if institutions are not set up geographically, and one can change memberships without having to relocate.
What’s wrong with the state is that it has a monopoly on whatever territory. Most states do not stop you from emigrating, which is good, and serves as a check on their abuse of power. This is most notably observed through a phenomenon called “brain drain”, where the educated members of your society leave to a better one. Obviously this has not stopped the world from becoming more tyrannical over time, probably because there are only so many governments in the world (oligopoly). The obvious solution is to break the link between institutions and geography to support free entry into the marketplace.
Your spiel about this alternative probabilistic punishment method is kind of non-topical… It could easily be used by states or by private courts. In all probability folks would have a lot of social justice problems with it, since it allows for some bad people to go free and some not-so-bad people to be executed. Such is the way of utilitarianism…
In anticipation of the statist’s response: Why would a free society organize itself in a way that makes violence and stealing optimal?
No, it is. All government debts are settled with legal tender. Even payment in kind, is a form of legal tender.
Sound money (in the Austrian - Ron Paul sense) is market money, the absence of legal tender (Paul has called for an end to legal tender).
If Nir or yourself want to argue over what constitutes sound money, so be it. But I am using a Misesian understanding of sound money as market money.
This was why I felt Nir was derailing. Because he introduced trivia that ended up confusing the conversation further.
You’re not helping.
It’s not a straw-man. It’s the real deal.
A. Violence and stealing is (and has been) done by a lot of people.
B. People’s motive for doing something is maximizing their self-interest.
C. Violence and stealing must be perceived to be optimal behavior by the ones doing it.
If A and B then C. You would need to ask THEM why. I’m only observing reality and using my brain. I don’t need to know their reasons or optimality functions to make my own conclusions.
Z.
Whatever. Let’s simplify: Minarchy + gold standard is better (more sustainable, more viable, and maximizes individual freedoms) than anarchy.
Z.
Very heavy claim here.
It is not more sustainable because states have incentive to rule in their own favor and expand. See these United States.
It is not more viable because competition creates incentives for PDAs to produce the optimal amount of security.
It cannot maximize freedoms if it must abridge them to do so.
A minarchy state would have to accept the burden of protecting all individual and property rights. But this is a very difficult and costly thing to do. To prevent every mugging and every instance of tax fraud you would need a super police state. The obvious conclusion is that after a certain point it is not worth it to reduce the level of violence in society any more. A central planner cannot calculate this point; A free market with PDAs can.
Security is a commodity like any other. Obviously you favor competition between firms in non-security industries. Why the doublethink?
On the flipside, you’re probably okay if states compete with one another for citizens (immigration/emigration, Brain Drain), why is the same not true for PDAs? The only difference is compulsion.
No, it is. I’ve already answered about violence, for you to repeat a question you already acknowledged the answer for is not very sincere.
What is “a lot”?
Yes.
Right. And violence and stealing must be perceived to be less than optimal behaviour by the ones not doing it. What are the difference in incentives between these two groups?
You can’t simply claim human nature, because many people do not engage in violence and stealing. We need to understand why billions of people live (relatively) peacefully, and millions do not.
You might not need to know their reasons to make your own decision, but I expect you know understand their incentives if you want to discuss them with me. If it is you and I, we can agree to non-violence (I think). The issue here, is you introduce the boogeymen of other people. And I want to understand, before we commit to the incentives of a minarchist state and the externalities (more incentives!) it creates, what incentives you suggest we are addressing.
Going back to my earlier point, I don’t think most people avoid theft and violence because they fear institutional reprisal. So the notion of laws or state violence keeping us safe, doesn’t seem sensical to me at all.
That’s incorrect.
Minarchy is not sustainable.
Viable is arbitrary.
Anarchism maximizes individual freedom, not minarchy. Anarchism has no institutional impediment to individual freedom. Minarchism does.
Tell that to your somali warlord.
does not compute [W]
Yes, but anarchy has plenty of other potential and highly unpredictable detriments to individual freedom: other people, each with their own claims to your freedom and their own powers to enforce them. The difference between you and I boils down to our models of human behavior. It’s a sliding scale, really. If your more idealistic model is closer to reality then maximization of individual freedoms leans toward anarchism. If however, my less idealistic model is closer to reality then minarchy + sound money does indeed end up maximizing individual freedom better than anarchy. Btw, how is minarchy any less sustainable than anarchy?
Z.
Yes, but anarchy has plenty of other potential and highly unpredictable detriments to individual freedom: other people, each with their own claims to your freedom and their own powers to enforce them. The difference between you and I boils down to our models of human behavior. It’s a sliding scale, really. If your more idealistic model is closer to reality then maximization of individual freedoms leans toward anarchism. If however, my less idealistic model is closer to reality then minarchy + sound money does indeed end up maximizing individual freedom better than anarchy. Btw, how is minarchy any less sustainable than anarchy?
Z.
Explain.
How is that any different than life now? How has the government stopped 9/11 or 77 terrorists? How has the government of Afghanistan or Iraq prevented those countries from being invaded by foreigners? How did the Nazi government protect Jews, or the 19th century American government protect blacks?
Again, you’re speaking in broad generalizations and vagaries. A question I like to ask is,
“What can the state do, that cooperative individuals cannot?”
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Because the incentives for government are to grow. Governments profit [sic] when they expand, not when they contract. In anarchism (the market), the incentive is based around lowering costs, not increasing them.
Also, government is the sole arbiter of whether it should or can grow. Who interprets the Constitution? The government. If the incentive of the government is to grow, how will they interpret it?
Likewise in anarchy, there is no sole arbiter to determine conflict or law because there is no monopoly. And so, you don’t sign up with a PDA who can raise your rates, provide bad service, and lock you and your children into a lifetime of service, regardless of your free will and right to self-ownership.
At this point, I will simply remind you that you have not yet made the case for why minarchy (monopoly) is necessary or even superior to anarchy.
Sorry. I meant it in accessory to your point rather than a convolution. I’m saying that we can expect a free society to organize itself in a way that makes violence and stealing very costly.
No, it isn’t. It’s just an assumption we have to make when we do economics. Like I said to Physiocrat, we could assume that men are good and that they value justice, fairness etc. when they’re in the market setting and that those in politics are not just opportunists but sadists. Now, I don’t think that approach is particularly helpful because by simply assuming that people are inherently selfish but responsive to incentives we can still show that governments, by and large, fail and that markets are likely to yield positive outcomes.
I also think it’s false, I don’t think people in politics are inherently evil, I just think that they’re likely to share the misconceptions of the voters (and if you want to understand politics, I think Caplan’s work is a must) and self interested.
Now, I think your intepretation of Laughing Man is essentially the same as mine. I also think your analysis is true as far as it goes. The possibility of migration can impose some discipline on the government. It’s not just brain drain either, I know from personal experience that the very wealthy from certain African countries are buying up properties in my area to get their money out of the country.
But it just isn’t true that this sort of thing is the only check on government. Throughout history we see the scale and scope of government growing at different rates and in different ways, so outside of “competition” there must be some other factors (unless you want to pin it on the people involved) limiting or allowing the growth of government. I also reject the idea that under anarchism there will be some sort of radical decentralization, I think Robert Nozick made an excellent argument for the idea that government can arise out of anarchy.
If you become a net tax producer, you will feel differently.
No one denies that.
Talking about institutions generically without referencing liberty + common good = big red flag saying “utilitarian”
I do agree that we should assume the worst about our economic agents. I was simply pointing out that your take on where we go from there is utilitarian.
I think our point is usually that competition is the best check, and that the alternatives either incorporate a bastardized form of competition or are faulty in some other way.
Yeah. I mean if anything lack of anti-trust laws would allow for a few large corporations to take market share. This would not necessarily be bad, as even firms with a natural monopoly face potential competition from the dynamic marketplace. Though this centralization may not lead to the rise of a new government. The thrust of the anarchist’s argument is not against centralization but violation of the NAP/Self Ownership.