Why anachro-capitalist societies would be more violent and more vulnerable to the emergence of absolutism than liberal democracies.

Economics Political Theory
1

Defense agencies within anachro-capitalist societies are motivated by profit. Agencies that disregard the profit motive for some other consideration will fail.

if a strategically valued resource (transit points, energy reserves, water, rare minerals, arable land, et al) can be annexed by coercion for a profit – then force will be used by an aggressor PDA to secure the resource.

Investors, customers, shareholders, managers, employees, et al are primarily motivated by profit. hence these actors will associate with profitably run PDAs irrespective of whether their profits are obtained by coercion or by peaceful means.

since the markets are dynamic and the relative strength of PDAs within the market is constantly changing along with the perceived value of strategic resources – anarchic society will resemble the present anarchic geopolitic in the frequency and severity of armed conflict.

As occurs frequently within our current geopolitic, PDAs and the power blocs that support them will increase in size and power through mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers. Eventually local and regional hegemon cartels of PDAs will emerge and establish absolutist power in order to reduce costs associated with competition and endless conflict.

2

if a strategically valued resource (transit points, energy reserves, water, rare minerals, arable land, et al) can be annexed by coercion for a profit – then force will be used by an aggressor PDA to secure the resource.

Thats a big if. Typically its more profitable to trade for said resource.

Investors, customers, shareholders, managers, employees, et al are primarily motivated by profit. hence these actors will associate with profitably run PDAs irrespective of whether their profits are obtained by coercion or by peaceful means.

Another big assumption. Most wars are fought today because of some percieved justification. Because people beleive they are morally right. In this society the use of force to obtain profit would be seen as criminal. So I doubt everyone would just go along because they stand to make a little money. Some would, no doubt, but most would not.

As occurs frequently within our current geopolitic, PDAs and the power blocs that support them will increase in size and power through mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers. Eventually local and regional hegemon cartels of PDAs will emerge

I would agree but not for the reasons above.

3

Within anarchic society individual PDAs and the industry as a whole will have no substantive checks, balances, decentralization, or transparency external to the agency or industry. All of the levers of power within an aggressor PDA are controlled and maintained within.

In contrast, within liberal democracies war is waged primarily for ideological reasons, not profit. In addition, control of military power within liberal democracies is diluted by myriad checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency.

Using the USA as an example – funding is from taxpayers, allocation of funds is from congress, oversight of the military is from congress, intelligence is from more than a dozen disparate agencies, types of forces (air, land, sea, et al) are competing and disparate, command is from the executive branch, local control and waging war is the military itself, profits are dispersed and primarily to military-industrial complex, law enforcement is local and state, information is from media and largely antagonistic to military.

In sum, one of the primary reasons why liberal democracies are peaceful to like-minded societies and far more peaceful than anarchic society is because the those benefitting from war, waging war, and paying for war are disparate and competing.

4

Thats a big if. Typically its more profitable to trade for said resource. --Southern

Wrong, it is always more profitable to trade.

unfortunately, not all transactions can be negotiated by peaceful means, otherwise we would have no need for PDAs and war.

Another big assumption. Most wars are fought today because of some percieved justification. --southern

my assertion that a PDA will use coercion to annex a valued resource if the resource can be obtained with a net profit is not an assumption – it is a logical fact. To reject it would be to assert that PDAs within anarchic society are not motivated by profit.

Because people beleive they are morally right. In this society the use of force to obtain profit would be seen as criminal.–southern

societies that place value on scarce resources based on morality will fail. in contrast, if a scarce resource is not valued properly by an owner who neglects to provide an adequate defense to securing it — it will be annexed by an aggressor PDA that correctly judges the value of the scarce resource.

moreover, an owner of a valued resource who cannot adequately defend it, probably is not utilizing the productivity of the valued resource to maximum effect. Hence, an owner who covets the resource because he recognizes its misuse will fund a PDA to secure this resource so he can better utilize its resources or benefits.

Society as a whole benefits because a heretofore under-utilized resource is now more productive thanks to coercion.

In sum, all resources will approach a point where they are defended by a force commensurate to the perceived value of the resource – otherwise that resource is subject to predation if it is undervalued and subsequently underdefended. Moreover, coercion can be used to increase societal productivity and living standards when peaceful exchanges are not possible.

So I doubt everyone would just go along because they stand to make a little money. Some would, no doubt, but most would not. – southern

again, subjective value judgments have no place in a profitable and productive society.

5

No. It would be like any other company.

But they don’t. They value the resources, and they value morality as seperate things.

Actually, it is the foundation. Without valuation, there is no action. No exchange. No profit.

6

In contrast, within liberal democracies war is waged primarily for ideological reasons, not profit. In addition, control of military power within liberal democracies is diluted by myriad checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency.

Are you both really trying to say most wars aren’t waged for profit? Im going to go ahead and say it might be a tad naive to think we are in Iraq/Afghan (or anywhere else for that matter) to “protect democracy.” Energy, land, and labor is what we fight wars for today. We make up the ideological reasons to justify our want of cheap goods/services, and massive profits.

So, when you say

Within anarchic society individual PDAs and the industry as a whole will have no substantive checks, balances, decentralization, or transparency external to the agency or industry. All of the levers of power within an aggressor PDA are controlled and maintained within

I personally would rather you make it clear that you mean an-cap society.

In sum, one of the primary reasons why liberal democracies are peaceful to like-minded societies

I think liberal democracies may be more peaceful to other nations with a comparitive level of military or economic power, but the history of this country alone should show that we are not averse to overthrowing democracies and instituting dictators.

7

If war is perceived as more profitible, there will be war. Why is it that in this fantasy-land that is being set up, it just happens to be the case often, as opposed to the world we see today, where it isn’t?

The state legitimizes violence. So it uses violence. An ancap society would have the feature of being against the use of force except in the case of extreme circumstances, hence they are in that social situation in the first place.

8

giant_joe,

No. It would be like any other company.

PRIVATE defense agencies are PRIVATE – they are under no requirement to disclose anything to the general public voluntarily.

Moreover, the owner of a private company is under no obligation to disclose anything about the company or its operations.

But they don’t. They value the resources, and they value morality as seperate things.

private enterprises and societies that base wealth creation and productivity on moral considerations will fail. economic value cannot be determined by moral value judgments. The enterprises and societies that succeed will be driven by economic considerations deviod of subjective value judgments like morality.

Actually, it is the foundation. Without valuation, there is no action. No exchange. No profit.

true, I was referring to subjective value judgments based on morality rather than subjective economic value judgments.

of course, PDAs will constantly be using subject value judgments to determine if it is profitable to annex a coveted resource using coercion when peaceful exchange is not possible.

9

giant_joe,

If war is perceived as more profitible, there will be war. Why is it that in this fantasy-land that is being set up, it just happens to be the case often, as opposed to the world we see today, where it isn’t?

I disagree,

can you name a period in modern human history when war was absent from the geopolitic ?

The state legitimizes violence. So it uses violence.

strawman – your statement does not debunk my assertion that profit legitimizes violence, so profit driven PDAs use violence to obtain profit.

An ancap society would have the feature of being against the use of force except in the case of extreme circumstances, hence they are in that social situation in the first place.

that is a moral value judgment.

why would ancap society be against the acquisition of profit irrespective of the means used to obtain it ?

are you saying that ancap society is faith-based society founded on morality rather than productivity or profit seeking ?

10

idk. I don’t think much about anarcho-capitalist society.

Mises conceives of the division of labor (Mises: “law of association”; Ricardo: “law of comparative costs”) as the great organizing principle—indeed, germ—of civil society. It is a spontanous order, and sustains and grows through the recognition that real wealth increases for each individual through specialization in production and voluntary exchange.

Albert Jay Nock postulates that man is more apt to “do the right thing” as his degree of personal freedom (and therefore, moral experience and education) expands.

On the other hand, the prevalence of warlordism in Afghanistan, for instance, cannot be denied. Warlordism is essentially the concern of OP. In my ignorance and lack of experience with anarcho-capitalist theory, I share this concern at the moment.

11

Rettopper I’m studying realist theory(international studies) and it’s made me interested if any anarchists writers have written on how a anarchist society could fuction in a geopolitical sphere with other actors(states) seeking power and security. Personally I don’t see an anarchist society coming to fruitition and power since such an event threatens the security of nation states. Along with that a anarchist society would not be free from subtle internvetion from other actors as they seek to gain an advantage over one another.

Also have you heard of Da Beers?

12

So what?

And wouldn’t the subsribers of this service want to know what this company is up to? If they didn’t give out this info, wouldn’t other companies get suspicious? I have no obligation to feed myself. It doesn’t mean I don’t. I have no obligation to disclose personal information. It doesn’t mean I don’t.

You can assert “They don’t have to” all you want, but it doesn’t make it convincing that they wouldn’t, seeing as there are incentives to give out that information, such as being accepted by a community or subscribers.

Even if the assertion about their secrecy were true, I still fail to see how this makes PDAs more dangerous than state militaries. All the security firms I’ve seen in the free(er) market aren’t secretive of their operations. But most of the military and security firms associated with the state tend to be that way. The militaries of countries tend to be secretive and sometimes aggressive inwardly and outwardly. I’ve never seen someone driving around in a Brinks truck kill anyone for their wallet. It’s just very unconvincing that people who are against coercion in general would support a PDA for protection, and then do nothing about it when it is being aggressive.

So I will “fail” if I prefer to start killing people and I don’t? This doesn’t make any sense. Investing in a firm today because of “social causes” is one thing. An ancap society shunning a PDA for being secretive and aggressive is another. In a society that is averse to coercion, they’ll have no interest in keeping around an aggressive PDA. Social mores are a part of society. For people living in an ancap society, they’d be against initiating force in general, even if it was more economically beneficial to some party. I never heard Rothbard or David Freidman say “If you can get away with killing a person on the cheap and you get some resources for it, do it!” …that’s contrary to ancap thought in general. A society of these people would be against that type of advice as well.

I’m interested in seeing exactly how an ancap society (anywhere from hoppe’s view to rothbard’s view or other’s views on how such a society would be shaped) would be more prone to violence than a state.

The ancaps are against the initiation of force to realize their ends. Statists are for the initiation of force to realize their ends. By using an ancap society as a starting point, you’ve already conceded that these people are more averse to using violence as a means.

Plenty is based in faith. I have faith in reality and in my perceptions, in that they are real and I experience them. All I am saying is that they would be more averse to the use of violence because they generally agree with the NAP, hence why they are an ancap society in the first place. I don’t know what it means for a society to be “founded” in something. Founded spiritually? Morally? Economically? In general, they’d adhere to the NAP and allow the free market to take it’s course. I don’t think that’s a wild claim as to how such a society would generally look like.

13

Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun,

Are you both really trying to say most wars aren’t waged for profit? Im going to go ahead and say it might be a tad naive to think we are in Iraq/Afghan (or anywhere else for that matter) to “protect democracy.” Energy, land, and labor is what we fight wars for today. We make up the ideological reasons to justify our want of cheap goods/services, and massive profits.

Within anarchic society all PDAs will be driven by profit. however, if the USA was motivated by profit than we would have bombed afghanistan and iraq into the stone age with carpet bombing using cheap iron bombs and taken their strategic resources (oil in iraq, minerals in afghanistan)

we would not be engaged in a costly and unprofitable exercise in democratic nation building.

of course, protecting over 70% of the most accessible oil reserves is a primary consideration for war in iraq. but if protecting oil resources was the main consideration saudi arabia and the tiny gulf states would be a US protectrate and gas would be 50 cents a gallon.

I personally would rather you make it clear that you mean an-cap society.

yes, all of the levers of military power in ancap society would reside exclusively within the PDA industry without any substantive checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency from any other segment of society.

I think liberal democracies may be more peaceful to other nations with a comparitive level of military or economic power, but the history of this country alone should show that we are not averse to overthrowing democracies and instituting dictators.

depending on your defintion for a liberal democracy – they rarely, if ever engage in war.

for the definition of a “higher order liberal democracy”, see freedom house: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2010

According to freedom house — there are over 50 higher order liberal democracies.

in contrast, war in ancap society would be terrible since it would not be guided by moral or humanitarian considerations. It would be guided primarily by profit.

hence, ancap PDAs would use effective and inexpensive carpet bombing to secure valued resources when necessary as opposed to liberal democracies who use extremely expensive and inefficient smart bombs designed solely to reduce collateral damage to innocent civilians.

14

I largely agree with this. It would have to be one heck of an intellectual revolution and most people would have to be on board with these ideas in order for there to be some kind of society that can keep its order for some time.

In the meantime, I’m just trying to open and change some minds.

15

Rettopper I’m studying realist theory(international studies) and it’s made me interested if any anarchists writers have written on how a anarchist society could fuction in a geopolitical sphere with other actors(states) seeking power and security. Personally I don’t see an anarchist society coming to fruitition and power since such an event threatens the security of nation states. Along with that a anarchist society would not be free from subtle internvetion from other actors as they seek to gain an advantage over one another.–pentahedron

I agree. ancaps have yet to explain why ancap society has never emerged from the detritus of myriad faiiled states despite the fact that when the state failed (1) anarchy was present and (2) free markets were present. Yet, from this favorable position, ancap society couldnt gain traction. it is always statism that emerges from anarchy.

Also have you heard of Da Beers?

No, do you have a source or link ?

16

Not necessarily. There could be non-profit armies (perhaps with some ideological impetus). Ideas are just as powerful motivators as profit.

Some historical examples:

The Teutonic Order

The Knights Hospitaller

The reason why these examples are less likely to be re-enacted:

Guns

Sensical, but assumes that coercion and resultant subjugation are profitable. Police states are very, very expensive to maintain. Take the eventual failure of:

Rome

Ottoman Turkey

Austria-Hungary

Given your usual assertion that anarchic societies have no real precedent, it is equally as difficult for you to forecast the negative outcomes of an anarchic society as it is for an anarchist to predict the theoretical benefits.

When is the last time you heard about the successful annexation of a nation-state by another? If anything, the trend is clearly leading towards liberation.

Given the current ideological stance of the population of the world (well, the west at least), I think it would be safe to say that the Liberal and Humanist Revolutions brought about by the Enlightenment were successful in shifting the norms in a way which makes it very, very difficult to wield despotic power over an unwilling populace. Back in the day, the kings and emporers usually had some sort of “Divine Right” to fall back on. The lack of that in a Humanist world, combined with the relative affordability and abundance of serious weapons, makes empire, especially a profitable one, rather hard to envision.

17

Why make this assertion? Do people just throw morality out the window all of a sudden?

Currently, world leaders go to war for their interests and the supposed interest of their states. Over 1 million Iraqis have been displaced/killed in the name of humanitarian goals.

18

This makes sense, and I agree.

19

Giant_Joe vs. OP

G_J argues that preferences will be anti-warlordism. OP argues the opposite.

Giant_Joe: Can you make an argument for a peaceful an-cap society that doesn’t rely on preferences, but instead on incentives?

Edit: This is not a challenge, btw. I simply don’t know whether it’s possible, due to sheer ingorance of an-cap theory.

20

Please, explain… what’s the difference?