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

[troutndeer]

@Spideynw

@troutndeer

Would this still not be considered anarchy in the sense that there is no state?

It depends on how you define anarchy. I define it as a society that refuses to obey the dictates of a government that has not obtained their consent. Given that the governments in Somalia have not obtained consent of those that they govern, it is not anarchy.

I will agree these types of countries are different to what anarcho-capitalists want. And that these counries are only anarchist in the sense that they have failed-states. However, it does pay to look at what happens when a power vacuum occurs.

@Spideynw

@troutndeer

and what would stop private militias in that case from acting in a similar fashion to African militias.

You have to have a civilization that is morally advanced enough to recognize that you cannot just kill people on a whim. Africa, as such, does not qualify. The United States does.

This is difficult for either of us to debate on because in the modern world countries in the west have never been without states. It is hard to gauge what it would be like if we were stateless tomorrow.

I do agree that culture plays a role in morallity. However, I do think there are bad people in any world who would still get together to cause criminal activities if it were so in their interest, and there were no serious legal implications. Crime is more common in places where there is less chance of prosecution.

Look at politicians, for example. While they justify there careers, most of us see most of what they do to be criminal. Would not these sorts of people still exist in an anarcho capitalist society? Would they, along with others, not seek domination and power through their own private militias?

@Spideynw

@troutndeer

Governments never maintain order? This is an oversimplification. Can you think of a time, before the establishishment of the modern state, where society was more ordered?

Who kills more, governments or criminals? Is order maintained because of the government, or in spite of it?

I do not think this is a very sound argument.

I do agree that governments have killed many more people than criminals. However, much depends on the type of government. Comparing, for instance, the state of Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime is quite different to comparing a relatively “liberal” state, like the New Zealand state, under John Key. In fact, I cant remember the last time the New Zealand government killed one of it’s own people. While the New Zealsnd state should be way more limited than it is. It is at least limited enough to not kill people. Correct me if I am wrong but most western societies don’t kill their own people on a daily basis. Even in the states I am sure more criminals would kill American citizens than their government does.

Also, if we look at a country, without a state, like the DOC we will notice that they are indeed some of the most violent and unstable in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo#The_impact_of_armed_conflict_on_civilians

Therefore, I am not convinced that a state even more limited than New Zealand’s that holds only a monopoly on law and order would be less orderless than an anarcho capitalist society.

[liberty_student]

NZ does not have a limited state.

[troutndeer]

@WisR

On that basis, Somalia is doing fine: It’s situation has improved relative to itself and relative to the countries around it:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880

Or here’s the full research report:

http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1861

Please read and let me know what you think.

That is a great read. I think just about all countries in Africa are pretty F#cked to be frank and governments play a major role in Africas underdevelopment. It is good to know that Somalia is doing average, at least in relative terms to other African States.

However, I was not defending African governments or any governments for that matter. Most are far too big, all of course, to varying degrees. While some here would not want to call me a libertarian I am at least a liberal in the Hayekian sense.

What I am saying is that I think that having a limited government, that is adequate enough to properly enforce property rights, would work much better than an anarcho-capitalist society. I also think an anarchist state brings with it many dangers and I do not see how such a society, in reality, would preserve much liberty at all.

[liberty_student]

@troutndeer

What I am saying is that I think that having a limited government, that is adequate enough to properly enforce property rights, would work much better than an anarcho-capitalist society.

1. Why?

2. How can a government that violates property rights, properly enforce property rights?

@troutndeer

I also think an anarchist state brings with it many dangers and I do not see how such a society, in reality, would preserve much liberty at all.

1. Which dangers?

2. What is it that the state does that cooperative individuals cannot do to preserve liberty?

[troutndeer]

@liberty student

NZ does not have a limited state.

So what you are saying is even an unlimited state can refrain from democide? Anyway, I guess limited has a few meanings, or else my meaning is wrong. I was meaning that the state is limited or constrained, in New Zealand, in the repespect that it is not totalitarian, that is, that their are institutional limits on power.

[troutndeer]

@liberty student

@troutndeer

What I am saying is that I think that having a limited government, that is adequate enough to properly enforce property rights, would work much better than an anarcho-capitalist society.

1. Why?

2. How can a government that violates property rights, properly enforce property rights?

Good questions.

1. Simply, as stated above in a bit more detail, that I think that an anarchist society would be more prone to violence.

2. Yes, the state by its very existance is a violator of property rights. However, it is possible for the state, as it does in some areas now, to enforce contract, rights ect.

Do I think a world with perfect liberty is atainable? No.

@liberty student

@troutndeer

I also think an anarchist state brings with it many dangers and I do not see how such a society, in reality, would preserve much liberty at all.

1. Which dangers?

2. What is it that the state does that cooperative individuals cannot do to preserve liberty?

1. The dangers mentioned above, lawlessness.

2. The point is the institutional outcomes of an anarchist society could lead to our liberty being taken away through murder, theft ect.

[troutndeer]

@Snowflake

But in all seriousness, troutndeer, you need to go back and read through the arguments. We’ve been where you’re at before and transcended through it.

Thanks for the advice. You may have, but not everyone who has read the AnCap literature, including myself, have conceded. In a way, I have much respect for it in the respect that it is consistant in its moral principles but that does not mean that I have to think that it will work.

[liberty_student]

@troutndeer

1. Simply, as stated above in a bit more detail, that I think that an anarchist society would be more prone to violence.

Ok, but you didn’t answer “why”. So I have to ask again, what makes you think this?

@troutndeer

2. Yes, the state by its very existance is a violator of property rights. However, it is possible for the state, as it does in some areas now, to enforce contract, rights ect.

But how is this exceptional to the state?

@troutndeer

Do I think a world with perfect liberty is atainable? No.

Me neither. But I don’t see that as a reason to establish establish a monopoly order.

@troutndeer

2. The point is the institutional outcomes of an anarchist society could lead to our liberty being taken away through murder, theft ect.

I don’t see how this answers my question. What is it that the state can do, that co-operative individuals cannot?

[Angurse]

@z1235

I’m not ignoring bottom-up. I (and history) don’t care how uniformity was achieved, as long it’s sustainable and stable beyond the threshold required for a society to prosper. If anarchist poly-centric (bottom up) legal system is indeed able to create a sustainable and stable uniform system, wouldn’t you think it should’ve done it by now, at least once?

It has been done actually. See Anglo-Saxon customary Law, merchant law, and Medieval Iceland and Ireland. For some brief primers see here, here, and here.

But even if it hadn’t been done at all, your last question is still fallacious. Just because something isn’t being done currently or hasn’t been done before in no way means that it can’t or shouldn’t be done. Just look at the rise of democracies over monarchies for perspective.

@z1235

Don’t you think there has to be something inherently related to human nature that has converged ALL of 1000+ attempts at human society to converge towards uniform law and enforcement? I mean, even communism has had a record of sustainability and stability over many millions of people-years. What’s anarchism’s record? Doesn’t that fact bother you even a little bit, or at least question the assumptions that you take for granted in your anarchist model?

If you look to Iceland or Ireland anarchy’s record is quite remarkable in my opinion.

[EternalSanction]

@troutndeer

2. The point is the institutional outcomes of an anarchist society could lead to our liberty being taken away through murder, theft ect.

Then individuals would sure have a strong incentive to band together in the name of self-defense.

[Snowflake]

@troutndeer

You may have, but not everyone who has read the AnCap literature, including myself, have conced

By “we’ve been where you’re at before and have transcended through it” i meant that this forum has already covered the issues that you’re bringing up, not that we have converted from minarchy to AC. I was always an anarchist

To rephrase some of the points others are making:

Government cannot create anything, it can only redistribute. You are implicitly claiming that there is a demand for security. It follows that the market would provide it if the government did not. What a surprise that when government fails to provide security we the private sector steps in. This is why there is more private security than public security, why more cases are settled in private courts than in public. Market efficiency > gov efficiency. Also liberty and self ownership.

Another thing to consider: If you are going to give an institution guns, you have to be careful. You can fire PDAs. You cannot fire government.

[Spideynw]

@Snowflake

@Spideynw

You have to have a civilization that is morally advanced enough to recognize that you cannot just kill people on a whim. Africa, as such, does not qualify. The United States does.

The united states PEOPLE do

Good catch.

[Spideynw]

@troutndeer

I will agree these types of countries are different to what anarcho-capitalists want.

As such, they are not anarchist societies.

@troutndeer

And that these counries are only anarchist in the sense that they have failed-states.

That is not anarchy.

@troutndeer

However, I do think there are bad people in any world who would still get together to cause criminal activities if it were so in their interest, and there were no serious legal implications.

Just because there is no government, does not mean there would be no serious legal or natural implications.

@troutndeer

Crime is more common in places where there is less chance of prosecution.

I know. Look at how much crime the government commits.

@troutndeer

Look at politicians, for example.

Exactly.

@troutndeer

Would not these sorts of people still exist in an anarcho capitalist society?

Obviously the people would. The careers, however, would not.

@troutndeer

Would they, along with others, not seek domination and power through their own private militias?

No. Let’s take the U.S. for example. Let’s say, at some point, 5% of the population decides to stop obeying the government. Stops paying taxes, stops using federal reserve notes, stops obeying victimless laws. The government decides to not punish them because incarcerating them would just cost too much money. Everyone else sees this portion of the population getting away with it, so everyone else stops paying taxes and stops using FRNs. The government collapses. So what will happen now? Nothing. No one else can setup a new government, because there is at least 5% of the population that will not go along with it. This is why it is critical that society be against killing in the first place. Because otherwise the government could just kill the 5% that are not going along with the system. This is why it is not possible in Africa, whereas I think it is possible in the U.S.

@troutndeer

@Spideynw

@troutndeer

Governments never maintain order? This is an oversimplification. Can you think of a time, before the establishishment of the modern state, where society was more ordered?

Who kills more, governments or criminals? Is order maintained because of the government, or in spite of it?

I do not think this is a very sound argument.

I didn’t make an argument. I asked questions. Regardless, it appears your answer to the first question, is it depends. And it may.

@troutndeer

Also, if we look at a country, without a state, like the DOC we will notice that they are indeed some of the most violent and unstable in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo#The_impact_of_armed_conflict_on_civilians

And as I keep saying, Africa is not ready for anarchy, so it is a poor reference for how anarchy would work. In regards to your link, “In 2009 people in the Congo are still dying at a rate of an estimated 45,000 per month, and 2,700,000 people have died since 2004. This death toll is due to widespread disease and famine”. Also, “The long and brutal conflict in the DRC has caused massive suffering for civilians, with estimates of millions dead either directly or indirectly as a result of the fighting.” Africa as a society thinks it is OK to kill for almost no reason, as far as I know. Again, anarchy cannot exist in a society like this, because the government would just kill those that disobey.

@troutndeer

Therefore, I am not convinced that a state even more limited than New Zealand’s that holds only a monopoly on law and order would be less orderless than an anarcho capitalist society.

So you don’t think society could function without mass extortion and mass slavery?

[z1235]

@liberty student

@DD5

You are not being coerced for you are not being forced to participate in this forum against your voluntary choice. The rules are a condition for participation authorized by the owners of this website but participation is voluntary! No individual freedom or private property of yours was violated.

Z, you need to understand this.

DD5, LS: It was probably due to my bad writing (English not my first language) but you completely misunderstood this part of my post. I wasn’t referring to me being coerced into anything. I listed “violent” behavior by couple of participants in this thread (threats of expulsion, insults, etc.) as examples of violence existent in humans. As far as our virtual lives in this virtual society are concerned, these actions amount to equivalents of bodily injury or even murder in real life and real society. My point was that even a forum frequented by anarchists needs uniform laws (for which a link was included) and enforcement (moderators) to make this forum (virtual society) sustainable. Hence, my analogy between forums and societies. I was referring to the coercion (limitation of freedom) that the uniform laws and enforcers exert on the participants to make this (and any other) forum a functioning one. How many (sustainable, hence existent) forums without such uniform rules and enforcement do you know? How would this forum look like if each of us had the freedom to set their our own rules, and are in position to ban anyone we want according to those “poly-centric” rules? Please re-read that post now after this clarification and see if it makes more sense.

Of course, anyone can leave if they don’t like participating. But isn’t that what each of us can do when we don’t like a society/country/town, as well? I’m guessing, you’re complaining that you are not allowed to move with your land and property – i.e. secede? Am I getting closer to the main problem here? What happens if you own the only bridge an island town has to the mainland? You live there in harmony (anarchy) under whatever constellation of laws, PDAs, and coordinating groups make things sustainable. Then you get pissed off for some reason and decide you want your own laws and you decide to secede “taking” your bridge with you. Are you within your rights (under anarchy) to only allow people you like into your new “coordinated group” under your new laws? Must people start obeying your new laws if they want to use the bridge to get to work? Of course, they can also decide to build another bridge and let you play with your bridge by yourself, but how long would this take and how much would it cost? How many productive man-hours would be wasted?

There’s so much friction and waste when you allow absolute freedom to all agents at every level of society. SOME uniformity and coercion (limitation of freedom) is simply necessary, especially at a level (state, country) that would enable commerce, industry, thus prosperity to flourish. As humans get more educated and more, well, human, less and less uniformity and coercion is eventually needed. But we’re simply not there yet as a species. And this was my main point.

Z.

[Snowflake]

@z1235

Of course, anyone can leave if they don’t like participating. But isn’t that what each of us can do when we don’t like a society/country/town, as well?

Well.. this is hitting on monopoly theory. The free market checks itself since no one has a monopoly over any particular industry and people can change employers/employees/investments with little cost. I.e. your ability to leave keeps businesses clean. This would seem to imply that there ought to be competition between governments to check their behavior as well. “Good” governments should attract more educated people and “bad” governments should lose their citizens. This tends to be the case with really bad governments like Iraq, which has scattered its college graduates around the world since the 1990’s.

So when one is free to leave a country, the government’s monopoly on its citizens appears to be broken. However, the government claims a rights on its land. You might point out: well there is land elsewhere. Not quite because not all land is equal. Govs like the USG hold a monopoly on the land where generation after generation has invested and built up, so that the cost of leaving the states is very high for most people. In this way, the USG can abuse its position and screw over its citizens so long as life is more bearable than the alternatives.

Note that our alternatives have been shot to nil, as the EU restricts immigration, and the IMF/USAID/CIA/NSA/etc has made the third world a living hell.

The anarchist claim is not necessarily that the united states should dismantle itself, but that it should respect private property and self ownership of those who declare themselves sovereign. Obviously no one supports invading peaceful neutral islands; why is it okay to do the same if I happened to be born in Texas instead?

Some claim that I would be a free rider if I didn’t pay taxes and lived in the United States because I would benefit from their military and education system bla bla. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that since the whole world benefits from United States military spending etc etc, they need to pay taxes as well.

However, the free market does a pretty good job of solving the free rider problem through insurance and buyouts of asset groups. Like if a neighborhood is threatened, no individual person is going to buy a missile defense system if bombers are coming. But if the residents transfer their liability to an insurer, it can use their pooled resources to do whatever is necessary. Note that the insurer also has an incentive to spend efficiently since it faces competition from other insurance policies and is also spending out of its own pocket.

Much of this has been a digression but I hope it fits somewhere in the issues you are having with government. Remember that the anarchist position is simply that if someone doesn’t want to participate in your organization, you should let them be. There is no reason to tax people when you should be collecting revenue from them voluntarily.

[liberty_student]

@z1235

Of course, anyone can leave if they don’t like participating. But isn’t that what each of us can do when we don’t like a society/country/town, as well? I’m guessing, you’re complaining that you are not allowed to move with your land and property – i.e. secede? Am I getting closer to the main problem here?

Yeah. That is the problem. If I don’t own my land, then who owns it? We have to ask, who has the higher claim to my property? The collective, or the individual? This is another crisis of reason for the minarchist. He wants to protect individual rights and property, and yet he won’t recognize the right to own property.

@z1235

What happens if you own the only bridge an island town has to the mainland?

This is irrelevant and offtopic, but I will indulge you on this once.

What if I have food and starving people need it? What if I need housing and you have the only free bed? What if I need education, and you are the only person who can teach me?

You’ve now abandoned individual rights in favour of positivism. You have a right to the bridge. These rights, necessitate that I MUST do something for you. Your so-called rights place an obligation on me, against my will. This is NOT a minarchist position. Of course minarchy is rationally incoherent, as we have just demonstrated.

@z1235

Then you get pissed off for some reason and decide you want your own laws and you decide to secede “taking” your bridge with you. Are you within your rights (under anarchy) to only allow people you like into your new “coordinated group” under your new laws?

Do you control your property or not? If not, I will be coming to live with you rent free, and demand you feed me, clothe me etc.

@z1235

Of course, they can also decide to build another bridge and let you play with your bridge by yourself, but how long would this take and how much would it cost? How many productive man-hours would be wasted?

So now it is ok to steal if it saves money and time?

@z1235

There’s so much friction and waste when you allow absolute freedom to all agents at every level of society. SOME uniformity and coercion (limitation of freedom) is simply necessary, especially at a level (state, country) that would enable commerce, industry, thus prosperity to flourish.

Arguing by assertion again. You still have not proven this. You have only continued to assert it. I can do that too. But it isn’t honest or worthwhile.

@z1235

As humans get more educated and more, well, human, less and less uniformity and coercion is eventually needed. But we’re simply not there yet as a species. And this was my main point.

Ah yes, humans need to get more human. [8-)] Which is of course, what you think is acceptably human. Or else you justify using violence against the entire species.

Your point is, you don’t care about rights or freedom. You only care about a society shaped the way you want it, and you will use violence, and violate anyone’s free will if they disagree with you.

If I am wrong, let me know. Otherwise, as is my rule, this is the end of the discussion. There is no debate of ethics or morality with someone willing to use violence to serve themselves.

[Spideynw]

@z1235

But isn’t that what each of us can do when we don’t like a society/country/town, as well?

When the only option is to leave one master for another, that is not the same thing as not participating in a forum. See, you can choose to participate on this forum if you like to or not. However, if you don’t participate, you are not forced to participate on another forum. If I leave my current residence, and move to another location, even another country, I am still being subjected to an unjust government.

@z1235

I’m guessing, you’re complaining that you are not allowed to move with your land and property – i.e. secede?

No, I am complaining that I cannot be free.

@z1235

What happens if you own the only bridge an island town has to the mainland?

Then someone else will build a bridge, or use boats, or planes.

@z1235

Of course, they can also decide to build another bridge and let you play with your bridge by yourself, but how long would this take and how much would it cost?

Probably not long. And people would be able to procure boats until the new bridge was erected almost immediately.

[Cam_Nedland]

@Democracy for Breakfast

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?

The idea is that people would only support just protection societies. Also, the Jutes were a Germanic group, not a Celtic group.

[z1235]

Snowflake, liberty student, Spideynw: Thank you for your replies. All good points worth pondering. I’ll try to address some below.

Looks like land and land ownership is hitting a sensitive spot. It appears to be the basis for the anarchist idea, as there could be no anarchism without it. Correct? Car, chair, table, stereo, money, gold, factory, store, company, business, intellectual, copyright, and pretty much any other type of property seems to be playing a distant second fiddle to LAND. I guess one needs land, first and foremost, to physically place (park, own, use) all these other items. If I own any of these non-land items on land that is not mine (say, rented) I can’t say that I really OWN them, as the owner of the land could rightfully limit how I use them on HIS land. “Owning” land seems to be much stronger than “owning” pretty much anything else. Also, laws over a particular piece of land must be at the full discretion of the owner, and the land owner should be able to make them and change them as he pleases – otherwise, we can’t say that he really OWNS the land. He owns it and he gets to do whatever he pleases with it. If he has ANY limitations as to this freedom, then we can’t really speak of any ownership. It’s all or nothing, pretty much. (Though, doesn’t this resemble the times of landed gentry?). How am I doing so far?

I would also go ahead and assume that zoning laws, or ANY other laws that would limit the land owner’s freedom to do with his property whatever he pleases are also frowned upon by an anarchist. So if my next door neighbor decided to open a coal mine, disco club, or a water-park, he should be able to do just that, correct?

That’s all nice, simple, and clean as a concept BUT…

Suppose I was a business-man looking to open a plant anywhere on this planet and I had a choice between a piece of land “ruled” by anarchy and another ruled by uniform (monopoly) laws and enforcement. Which one do you think would offer me better visibility and predictability for my business model over the next ten years? Choice 1, where FOR WHATEVER REASON SUITED THEM, LS can decide to change the laws over his bridge, Snowflake can change the rules on the roads over his (substantial plot of) land, and Spideynw can change the rules on his railroads, up to and including secession and prohibition of their usage for my business if I don’t submit to their whims (blackmails)? OR Choice 2, where I can read the uniform laws obviously accepted by the majority owners (and non-owners) over a large swath of society and over a long enough period of time, observe the record of their enforcement over that period of time, and if those limitations of my freedom and costs (taxes) calculate well with my business model then I can assume those to be stable, “sticky”, and much less amendable to drastic changes exactly because the freedoms of ALL agents (to do whatever they please) are limited in some way for the sake of that stability? Now, if I chose #2, and every other entrepreneur chose #2, who would go and produce in choice #1? Perhaps, some anarhist idealist who would value absolute freedom on their land more than anything else, even at the expense of not being able to run any business in there?

Am I the only one who would prefer even Sweden to Somalia – where btw I heard land is really cheap and taxes are 0%? Why doesn’t every rich person in the world jump to this opportunity of the century and grab a plot of land in Somalia and be the boss on their own land with no one telling them what to do? Why aren’t insurance companies fighting to provide “security” to such potential land owners and future business people there in anticipation of the prosperous nirvana that is bound to ensue? Snowflake complained that there are no “decent” places to go without a government “stealing” freedoms and money. Well, doesn’t that fact prove my point?

Now LS will come back and say again that all the above are just assertions, and not proofs. I’m sorry but I don’t have proofs. What I have is a memory of my bloody nose I got at age 5 when I got tripped by another kid on the street. It tought me that my freedom to do whatever I pleased (walk nicely without tripping) was limited right there and then by someone else – another agent with their own sense of a “good idea” and “justice”. Ever since then I have accepted that I can only have ABSOLUTE freedom if I lived on this planet by myself, but that would’ve been a lame existence anyway, so I didn’t really desire it. The more REAL people (agents) are on this planet, the more I can expect my freedoms to veer from that absolute ideal, and that’s OK. I found that it’s OK to trade some freedom (and ideals) for a lot of tangible prosperity in return.

Finally, if LAND was truly the ultimate property, what’s stopping the 100 richest people in the world from buying up ALL the land on this planet, and make squatters of the remaining 6 billion of us? Each of them becomes a king in their own kingdom and rules however he pleases over his land. Haven’t we been there about 1000 years ago, though? How (and why) did we end up here from there?

Z.

[DD5]

@z1235

Finally, if LAND was truly the ultimate property, what’s stopping the 100 richest people in the world from buying up ALL the land on this planet, and make squatters of the remaining 6 billion of us? Each of them becomes a king in their own kingdom and rules however he pleases over his land. Haven’t we been there about 1000 years ago, though? How (and why) did we end up here from there?

What’s to stop them today from buying all the food on this planet? Or all the shoes? Your problem is NOT anarchy, but free markets. You’re now using socialist myths about markets to try to refute anarchy.