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

Economics Economics Questions
81

Snowflake, as far as I can tell your opening line doesn’t make any sense. I didn’t make any value judgements, I mean, I agree that my use of the term “common good” is a somewhat ambiguous value judgement, but it’s certainly not utilitarian and I did put it in square quotes for a reason.

I agree, that competition is usually necessary, I’m just not sure matters are so simple when it comes to the state. Ultimately, I don’t think a priori armchair declarations on what is “efficient” are very helpful. Previously I would say that I wasn’t convinced that anarchy would work, and until then I would refrain from labeling myself as such. Now, I don’t even think that way of thinking about society is particularly helpful, I think a more careful analysis of the institutions in a given society is necessary, and that whilst theoretical definitions of anarchism might be possible, applying them in practise gets very messy (just look at the debates in the “anarchist community” when it comes to Somalia).

This final paragraph is directed at both LS and Snowflake, I’m not sure what “NAP/ self ownership” has anything to do with it. But I also think my original exposition was unclear. My point wasn’t so much that government can arise out of anarchism, rather, I think that there would be a tendency for centralization with regards to the production of defense.

82

certainly not! lol. what then? Rousseauian?

83

I arrive at a similar conclusion. I don’t believe that definitions of government separate gov from non-govs (like criminals). Even if there were a concrete definition of government, there is no reason to use it because we can understand society X empirically without categorizing it as a democracy/monarchy/anarchy and just look at how groups use whatever power they have and judge it from there.

This conclusion does not lead me to renounce anarchism, because I can still articulate the NAP/Personal Ownership and all the utilitarian arguments in favor of the free market. Perhaps this is no longer called “anarchism”… but whatever. It is kind of hard to bang through people’s heads that definitions of government are useless and discarding them does not impede criticizing institutions reliant upon aggression.

84

No one denies that government can emerge out of anarchy. The point of Nozick’s story was that a government could arise spontaneously, i.e. without violating rights. And on this he was soundly refuted (see JLS 1.1).

Link? All I’ve seen are non-anarchists who misunderstand institutional bestness trying to use Somalia in an abortive attempt at a reductio.

85

I think he means that he’s still off about “natural rights” and how he thinks proponents of it believe that rights are some magical protection.

86

Explain the incentives.

Some people are oblivious to the incentives and false claims about of the state. They support the state out of ignorance. Others, support the state because they benefit from it.

You are well aware of the arguments and understanding about the state.

If you stop being a tax consumer and you start to suffer for these institutions, then you will change your mind. That is assuming you are a rational actor.

87

Once a Minarchy is established, what will prevent the government from growing beyond the size its founders intended it to be? The empirical evidence is overwhelmingly against those who think they can establish some kind of government which will not expand.

88

The state (with its uniform legal system and enforcement) can protect my freedom and property from attacks launched by any other agent from within and from outside the country. In anarchy, anyone with more power than myself can come and take everything I own, including my freedom (slavery) and I would have no recourse whatsoever. You claim that the latter is unlikely. Even if that was true (which I think is not), the utter intensity of that potential loss would make it preferable to trade a little bit of freedom for better visibility (transparent laws) and predictability (limits to government intrusion via constitution and the court system). Additionally, this visibility and predictability allows for much more efficient allocation of productive resources. If I can’t know when and what group can decide to just take everything I own, it is much harder to optimally distribute my capital between productive and defensive means.

Your model of human behavior assumes that an individual’s self-interest is inherently non-violent and cooperative. My model assumes that self-interest by no means excludes violence, in fact, history has proven that it is its major component. It is the amount of violence inherent in this self-interest model that – on a sliding scale – ultimately decides which system is optimal toward maximizing individual freedom. If your model is correct, anarchy maximizes individual freedom. If my model is correct, minarchy maximizes individual freedom.

Why is there a government’s incentive to grow? How do “they” profit by expanding and not by contracting? If so, how is this different from any other entity? Wouldn’t it also be in the interest of any cooperating group of individuals to grow by gaining ever more power and weapons and by merely taking away property from agents that refuse to voluntarily join their agenda? Take the mafia or any “protection” racket as an example. What good is your freedom and what would your recourse be in this scenario?

Z.

89

So why does crime exists inside the United States? Why have states had a history of being invaded by other states? Do you have any proof of the assertions you make about anarchy? Btw, efficiency is subjective. So, we know why you like the state, but should I be coerced into accepting its services?

Your assumption about the state is that it will not go beyond its given powers. Show me state that has not gone beyond its powers. Optimality is subjective.

They “profit” by gaining more power and enriching their friends, or in the case of Senator Dianne Feinstein, enriching her husband’s company. The mafia acts like a state, which is what you favor and wish upon all of us. Btw, at least the mafia don’t pretend to be good guys.

90

I thought scineram was engaging in bad theatre. Like “TAKE ME TO YOUR SOMALI WARLORD!”

91

But it doesn’t. Iraq didn’t protect its citizens from America. Britain did not protect the freedom of Britons against German bombers in WWII. Certainly the US government did not prevent 9/11. So the protection claim is disproven.

The Jews had no recourse against the Nazis. The people at Waco had no recourse against the US government. Chinese citizens have no recourse against their government. Your government can conscript you (force you to kill or be killed). Your government can take 100% of your income. Under eminent domain, your government can take your land. So we have just disproved another myth about government over anarchy.

But that is also a myth. There is no less transparent agency than government. The government knows more about you, than you know about it. You have to file freedom of information act requests to get information, and maybe they will grant it to you, and maybe the requisite department will comply. Maybe. The fact the US government ginned up the Vietnam war was a secret for 30 years, and only accidentally got released. How do you really know what your government does in your name? How do you really know how much they watch you? You don’t. Heck, you probably can’t tell me within any degree of certainty what laws will be passed in two years, or what the real deficit will be this year. You don’t know what Obama will do one month from now. Do you know if the US will attack Iran or not? Sheesh.

Not necessarily. My model of behaviour sees that it is in the self interest of people to cooperate and to deal with each other morally because that is behaviour that is incentivized under a free market.

For every episode of violence, there are easily as many periods of peace. Your claims about violence continue to be arbitrary, unproven and I believe untrue.

No, because you haven’t proven that minarchy provides anything that anarchy does not.

What happens to politicians when they solve problems? Do they get more power? Can they tax more as problems are solved?

Of course not. When government agencies fail, they get more funding and resources. When government agencies succeed, generally they are downsized or stay the same size.

Contrast that with the market. In the free market, when you fail, you can’t tax your way out of it. You go bankrupt. The incentives are to succeed, so you can increase market share. The government only increases its political market share if things go badly, not if they go well. That is why government always grows during crisis. Both in power and in debt.

No. Because they have to bear the costs of acquisition themselves. States are able to externalize the costs of its property acquisition to the citizenry. Take criminals for example. They prefer to rob people who are not armed, to people who are armed. Stealing sounds like a good game, until you realize it might kill you. Under the state, self-defense is discouraged in favour of the cops. In a free society, citizens would be encouraged to employ people who take their defense seriously, and to engage in self-defense themselves. The Swiss are a good example of the latter.

Well, if the mafia harassed me, I would go to another mafia if I couldn’t defend myself. With the state, they have a monopoly. There is no one else I can go to. It’s unfortunate that we will have mafias, but if we do have them, I want a chance to fight back.

Couple questions for you.

  1. What can government do that individuals cooperating cannot?

  2. Does an individual have a right to secede from government?

  3. Do you support free markets?

92

That may be so but the actual Rothbardian position, which I presume you know, is that any coercive act is indeterminate in terms of utility since you can’t calculate the utility changes between the coercer and coercee. Now this has been extended using Rothbards monopoly theory by Hulsmann, that if people believe the state to the beneficial or recognise it as a legitmate authority contra a bunch of bandits then it causes systematic error in all that it does and hence is defecient a priori. Matuj (wrong spelling) does something similar in his calculation debate paper.

As above.

Depending what you mean by selfish but if meant in a Misesian sense then I agree.

93

Depending on the scope and specifics you are thinking of: taking civilized history as a whole I don’t think this can be seen as empiricaly true. I would also be half tempted to say it may be empircaly false (though it is most probable that the evidence is inconclusive). Of course, you would have to clarify the scope of the phrase “centralization with regards to the production of defence”. If you mean that societies of any size that survived had some degree of military organiziation/ hierarchies, this is most certainly true and would be near impossible to refute empirically .

94

Sage, you’re still missing my point. I understand what Nozick was attempting in the first section of ASU, I was merely making the point that I think there may be some advantages of centralization with regards to the provision of defense. I’m advancing this very tentatively because I’m not sure of its validity (and LS, this is an answer to your first question). As far as I can see, having a community populated by individuals who have purchased their security from different providers would merely increase the risk of conflict (and hence costs), now, as I said I’m not sure by what mechanism it would occur but I can see the production of defense being provided on a geographical basis.

For what it’s worth, I think far too much weight is put on MDAs or PDAs or whatever by the LvMI crowd.

As for Somalia, start a topic here and ask people if they think it’s a good example of anarchism. Some will say that it is, without doubt, a great example of the abolition of a state bringing a higher standard of living. Others will say that Somalia is merely comprised of warlords or mini-states now.

Physiocrat, if you want to have a discussion of Hulsmann’s piece, send me a PM and we can discuss it through messages. It’ll make the whole thing go much easier.

LibertyStudent, I’m glad to know that you’ve now changed my ranking from a morally bankrupt idiot to somebody who is simply fickle! More seriously though, I’m going to have to dispute the claim that ones views and opinions are merely a function of the money the receive from the state. Moreover, I think we should probably refrain from ad hominem attacks, and if they’re going to be made, they should at least be more informed than yours.

Dondolee, do you think you could clarify what you meant?

95

Your proofs have holes the size of a bus, I’m afraid. Do you also “disprove” the curing claim of penicilin by listing the names of dead people who had received it?

Penicilin. And you’re at best being disingenious by invoking these examples here and below. Did I ever express an intent to defend any action of any state? I thought we’re arguing over anarchy vs mianrchy + sound money.

I didn’t set out to prove anything, and I’m starting to think that you may have some serious problems as to how proofs really work. I was merely explaining (again) how the optimality (maximizing individual freedom) and viability of anarchy vs minarchy depends on the assumed violence contained in the human self-interest model. No one can “prove” how much violence there REALLY is among humans. Do you agree?

Based on my observations and beliefs about human nature, and given a choice between two territories of similar resources and populations – 1) anarchy 2) minarchy + sound money – personally , I would pick (move to) the second one as there I would expect to maximize my individual freedom and potential to prosper. In my previous post I also explained WHY I believe that these goals are more likely to be achieved there. Obviously, you believe that these (assuming similar) goals would be best achieved in 1), and that’s fine with me. I sincerely hope that we do get the chance to implement these two models side by side and compare notes on freedoms and prosperity after a 100yr experiment, but I have a feeling it’s not likely to happen.

  1. Already asked and addressed in the first paragraph of my previous post.

  2. Yes. Move. Or vote and become active to change what you don’t like about it. Invoke laws and address courts for recourse if you think you’ve been wronged by government or any other agent in society. Much better than your “freedom” to pick one “protection” racket over another, I believe.

  3. Yes.

Z.

96

translation after applying logic filters.

The state (with its uniform legal system and enforcement monopoly power) can protect infringe my freedom and property without systematic dynamic forces working to prevent this; The state can use the spectre of the possibility of attacks launched by any other agent from within and from outside the country to scare me into thinking i better invest all earthly power of life and death over to it now and forever, and this wont have negative consequences or pervert incentives to the provision of good government.. In anarchy as well as under a state, anyone with more power than myself can come and take everything I own, including my freedom (slavery) and I would have no recourse whatsoever. Under anarchy my would be tormentor must be able to overpower a multitude of similarly powerful organisations, organisations such of these have little to gain and everything to lose in going to war with relatively vaster loose affiliation of non-rogue justice agencies, whose conduct is dynamically orientated towards just action by the spontaneous order of the market.. Under a State, we have instituted an agency far more powerful than myself or anyone that would volunteer to help me, and that’s good because… who knows? i don’t.

the utter intensity of the potential loss of being tormented by a monopoly government would make it preferable to trade a little bit of fear in the efficacy of free markets for better visibility (transparent laws) and predictability (limits to government intrusion via competitive incentives). Additionally, this visibility and predictability allows for much more efficient allocation of productive resources. If I can’t know when and what monopoly super group can decide to just take everything I own, it is much harder to optimally distribute my capital between productive and defensive means.

97

You’re too young to be a morally bankrupt idiot. We won’t know that for at least another 10 years. [;)]

That wasn’t my claim. Shame that as simple as it was, you missed the gist of it. Review it again.

Where was the ad hominem? Don’t get me wrong, I had about 6 or 7 really good Ad homs in there, but I edited them out before posting. [:P] So really, are you just crying wolf, or did I attack you personally?

98

I’m simply matching your standard for proof.

I’m not being disingenuous. You are defending the minarchist state as superior to anarchy. I am asking you to prove your case.

No, you didn’t. But I asked you to when you argued by assertion.

You haven’t explained that however. You have merely asserted it. And yes, no one can prove how much violence there really is, yet you have continued to assert that an extremely violent past validates the necessity for a state.

To review this.

Cooperative individuals can do this. There is no reason why people can’t come to a legal system voluntarily (they have before) and work for protection ala mutual aid. History is ripe with examples of this. And obviously it is true, because there is nothing a state can do that cooperative individuals cannot, except… monopoly.

So you do not support secession. Thus the Russians in the USSR should have fled the country or voted. They had no fundamental right to their own lives and property. The government superceded their individual rights. Is that correct?

If you support free markets, why do you not support free markets in defense? Why not in law? If you don’t support free markets in defense and law, aren’t you arguing for global governance with a single supplier of a uniform code of planetary justice? No more countries, just UN provinces?

99

Fine work.

100

This question comes from a perspective problem caused by having spent your entire life under a single state. The anarcho-capitalist essentially sees the whole world as a collection of people and entities composed of people, including some entities that fall under the category “state”. The AC then sees that the state is violent and destructive, and wants to get rid of it. He’s not proposing some “system”, he’s just saying he wants to get rid of a massive criminal organization.

This doesn’t mean no other massive criminal organizations can form and gain power. According to some AC’s it’d be tough to do with the right social structure (though I can easily see how this comes off as rationalizing), but not impossible. But in any case, you can be sure that AC’s will be opposed to the new state just as much as they are opposed to the old state or any violent crime.