Never heard of it. I will take a look. Thanks.
I’m not sure if these have already been posted, but it seems like these would be immediately relevant for both their coverage of the subject of anarchism and their discussion of the situation in Somalia: Peter Leeson’s lecture on anarchy and Ben Powell’s lecture on Somalia.
Was there a clearance sale on straw men that I missed?
Another straw man. Any society, anarchic or not, must have some means of dealing with criminals to survive. My understanding of rational anarchy was that there would be no respected organization that claimed the sole right to initiate force - that only defensive, reactive force would be tolerable, and that those who did not wish to defend themselves would be able to hire that service from others. This would be different from a minimalist government in that, if one did not wish to do business with Acme Defense Services, one could handily hire Zenith Protection, instead. That all transactions, while perhaps necessary, would be voluntary - you could opt out of hiring any defense service if you wished, and take care of problems yourself (while not violating the rights of the neighbors, of course.)
The government (USAian or otherwise) is NOT the same as any other criminal - criminals do not claim the moral high ground. Enslavement via force with moral right is a governmental vice - criminals just claim sufficient force.
Are you seriously suggesting that anarchy == weak, uninvolved government? That would, indeed, be the first time that I’d heard that assertion. If that is the case, what is the difference between minimal government proponents and anarchists?
Danno, Confused and Bemused (and remembering Big Al, finally)
and anyone who speaks in generalities and total ignorance of the facts is a …?
Thanks - I’ve read it. Fairly convincing in the “could improve traffic flow”, long-distance roads, and other aspects - but it only tangentially addresses the “I can’t leave my house without using the road in front of it” problem, and in that, only poo-poohs the problem by way of analogies. His system would, perhaps, work - for new construction, new neighborhoods constructed on underutilized land - nobody would buy new houses built in areas without reasonable access costs. This is not necessarily applicable to those of us living in established neighborhoods, if an unscrupulous private business bought the road with the intention of bleeding the people that must use it dry.
In short, the business that owned the street at the end of my driveway would be able to be as unreasonable as they liked - I would not have an alternative. Forgive me if I’m happier knowing that I can rally my fellow citizens in case of horrid mismanagement of that company and vote for other management teams to replace the current scoundrels. Not that this system is ideal - far from it. It just seems more secure to me than putting that road into the possession of a private company over whom I have no recourse. Mr. Block’s objection to my emotional misapprehensions are well and good - but not convincing.
When transporter or private aircar technology becomes available, competition becomes possible, and government can let the business be taken up by the private sector. While competition is impossible, it behooves us to leave the operation of the roads under an organization over which the customers have (nominal) control.
Socialist? Liberal? Democrat? Sorry - the temptation was just too great.
Were you under the impression that people would know who you were addressing, or what you were referring to? That impression may have been in error.
Danno, who should be making hay (or fresh-painted walls) while the sun shines.
Good so you understand how it works.
You are either stealing or you are not. There is no moral high ground in that sense. Plenty of people accused of beig criminals are actually not and plenty of people who claim the moral high ground are actually criminals.
Yes, uninvolved government would be an anarchic society. Uninvolved government= No government. Minimal government proponents can’t make the final logical conclusion that if forcing people to do something is wrong then forcing people to do some things is wrong.
To advocate for freedom does not mean advocating for utopia. Like I said, there will always be criminals attempting to take your freedom.
Danno, what you are saying is that the free-market is not an optimal provider of some services. What is the criteria you are using to establish that the free-market is good for some things and not others? What examples do you have where the free-market is in competition with government and the government is providing a better more efficient product for less? I know of no examples where government is the best provider of anything.
Apparently not…
How’s that? Some sort of Robin Hood defense you’ve concocted?
So If I go out and vandalize some private property like Greenpeace or those anarco-commies like to do then I’m not a common criminal but am justified because I have the moral high ground?
You know, if it walks like a duck…
I am kind of curious on your views about how coercive monopolies such as roads can fit within a society free of coercion? Let’s say someone doesn’t chose to pay for the road in your classic free rider problem sort of way, then what are you going to do?
There is no really effective way to restrict someone from traveling across public roads so you can’t deny them service like if they don’t pay their water or electric bill so how do you get them to pay without violating their natural rights?
Simple, different routes, different forms of transportation, or altenatively turnpikes and the like. As I’ve said most roads (this is incorrect as Stranger pointed out, but for lack of a better word) leading to houses would be dead ends to reduce costs. However, even if they aren’t and I happen to live on a road that is poorly maintained (or expensive)I can either bear with it or I can park my car elsewhere and walk to it to avoid using the road, use whatever form of “public transport” would arise, move house if I find it that troublesome cycle to work and once more avoid using the road. This, alongside other factors such as the fact that fewer people would visit me would either force the company to improve the quality and lower the price or go out of buisness.
Of course, people built tanks to hold the water which is delivered by somebody else in large quantities. It’s a silly challenge anyway, if I can’t find a way to do that doesn’t mean the free market can’t.
False analogy.
The whole point of this “free market” thing is that if people don’t want to use the roads of the “unscrupulous private business” they needn’t, that isn’t the case of a monopolist of roads (the state).
Because rallying your “fellow citizens” has worked so well in solving all the other “market failures”, right?
You would, you can avoid using the street whilst still leaving your house, moreover if a street owner were being unreasonable they could be dealt with through ostracism. Violence simply isn’t needed.
Danno please read the existing threads on road ownership.
In a free market, you don’t have to vote out the scoundrels, you can just get your fellow citizens together and buy them out. It is much easier and more efficient.
I wonder why minarchists insist on using roads as a case for their ideology. Hoppe has thoroughly demolished the case for “public” goods, which roads are not, at any rate.
-Jon
No. I could ask you if I said that you claimed everyone who spoke English was untrustworthy but that would be an annoying response.
I disagree. You will be like a Garfield Comic in the middle of a Chinese newspaper.
Wanting something to work is one of those techniques that really hardly ever works…we just hear people go on and on about how they found success because they wanted it but rarely ever hear from those who want success and find failure. Often failing because they thought that wanting something enough was the first step to success and the second , third , fourth and fifth steps as well and all ideas that threaten to reduce the “wanting” step are to be ignored since that is what will cause the failure.
Plus I also sense the idea that one’s labor always creates value in these Gulch Neauveau ideas and that is an idea that is often very wrong as well.
I’d thought so - but I fail to understand how this is reconciled with that wikipedia list of “anarchic” societies.
If I provide the monopolistic security service for an area, and force the residents there to pay for it (whether they want to or not), is it theft? Or is it theft if they refuse to pay for a service that I am, indeed, providing? Let’s face it - if my security service prevents Joey from breaking windows, or prevents him from breaking more windows by putting him in a cage - have I not provided a valuable service to the window owners? If I prevent others from providing such a service, I’m in the wrong - but does that make it wrong for me to provide such a service, or insist that the window owners pay me for it?
It’s not quite as cut-and-dried as I’d like it to be.
Then, according to you, minimalist-government proponents are indistinguishable from anarchists. Okay - cool. Shall we get together and cooperate on this?
If I want to send two pieces of 8-1/2" by 11" paper to a correspondent on the coast (I’m in Minnesnowta), without a guaranteed time frame, but with reasonable expectation that it’ll be delivered within the week, for less than a half a USAbuck, my best recourse is the United States Postal Service. Yes, they’re imperfect, and there’s a minimal chance that they’ll lose it, or that it’ll take longer than 7 days to arrive - but they’re still my best option.
I hate that they were a legally-mandated monopoly for so long. I sincerely wish that they were a private enterprise, rather than a federally-funded service. But they’re still the most cost-effective option I have.
I’m glad that other companies, such as UPS, can compete with them. I still use USPS, because where cost is comparable, USPS gives better service - UPS tends to rely heavily on good packaging and lots of bubble-wrap. I get better service from the USPS, with better costs. And nobody else will send a business-size envelope with less than an ounce of weight for a comparable price, to any address I designate in the world.
It’s economies of scale - they’ve got it, largely because nobody else is allowed to compete with them in simple letter delivery. They’re imperfect - but they work just fine for a large majority of that service that I’ve contracted them for. Nobody else comes close on price, and nobody else’s service is markedly better.
That may not be the only example of a government-run service that outperforms private-sector providers, but it’s the one that came to mind when you asked.
If there were three providers who provided every-day service to my house, they’d all have to charge more, because of the lesser traffic - it’s a service in which economies of scale matters a lot. I expect that I still pay some in taxes elsewhere to support this service - but I believe that the extra expense still keeps this service as reliable, and at less per-item cost, than I’d be able to get from the private sector.
It dont’ happen frequent - it’s pretty rare. But that does not mean that it never happens at all.
Perhaps we’ve never seen Hoppe’s demolition. Perhaps is one of the few cases of services that are so location-dependent as to require a government. It’s a far more likely example of “must be done by government” thang than, say, cola-flavored beverage, which obviously works better in the private sector than it would in public sector.
Of course roads in the USA are not “public goods”. If I take my car to transport myself to the local grocery store and back, I’ll owe dues to some private provider. Or maybe not, and you’ll have to go to the trouble of explaining why they’re not really “public” goods.
This isn’t even a strawman argument. This is “if you knew better, you’d know better” - not particularly convincing. You didn’t even bother to offer a link/pointer toward Hoppe’s argument - you simply claimed that it existed, and was not refutable.
Is that the best you can do? Winning an argument by sneering at the opposition is rarely respected, or effective.
Danno, who had hoped for more.
No - then, you’re just an uncommon criminal, and have some justification in claiming the moral high ground, just like a government. I wasn’t supporting it, just noting that there was a difference there.
Ideally, such things as roads are funded by unavoidable user fees - a tax on fuel, for example. You don’t buy fuel for a vehicle, so you don’t use the roads - you don’t pay. You use a lot of vehicle fuel, therefore use the roads a lot - you pay in proportion to your use.
This is not, to the best of my knowledge, exactly how it’s done in any current society - but that’s workable, and the nominal intent in several areas. ‘Would work, and how we’re trying to make it work’ is sufficient to pass any tests of potential utility on my end. I’m not demanding a perfect, flaw-free plan - I just want a plan that could conceivably work - something better than “8 levels of street passing your house to choose from” or “other ways to get from here to there, which we’ll come up with soonish”.
Danno, finally getting to the meat of the meal (and I ain’t a vegetarian.)
Walk across someone else’s property without paying toll? Park my car on someone else’s property without offering them recompense? You’re envisioning the evil “public access route” that I’m insisting must be available. Cycle - in midair, not using another’s property to transport myself? This is not a solution to the problem - it’s just evidence that you haven’t given the problem enough thought.
You continue to use “move house” as a no-cost, or minimal-cost, solution of last resort. That would be a hassle for a renter - but I own my house (as far as governmental restrictions will allow me to “own” property), and selling property that has no good access to transportation routes is not an easy, or profitable, task. This is not merely an inconvenience - this could reduce the value of my property by tens, or hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Your financial situation may be different, but for me, this would be a fairly serious problem.
As long as they held me and my neighbors hostage to their demands, the road company could enjoy the upper hand. Their agents, buying property that was devalued by unreasonable transport costs, could make a killing, if they bought enough at a low price, then changed transport access cost enough to raise values. It’d pay them well to horribly abuse me and my neighbors - transferring value from us to them without violating any contract.
“Oh, I can’t answer that one, but that doesn’t mean that someone else can’t”. You imply an alternative method that you have no knowledge of - not particularly convincing.
In what way? You can’t claim that without at least explaining what analogy I used, and why it’s false. Nice try, no cigar.
In the case of a governmental misuse of the authority over roads, there’s an election coming up within the next few years. That is an actual problem for the folks running things who have to compete with other candidates for that power - just about the only strength that a government has in a free system. If anyone could be effectively prevented by social ostracism, our local, state, and federal governments would not be able to function as they do now.
Some years ago, Smith & Wesson annoyed gun owners by going along with demands from the anti-gun lobby that were not required by law. Years before that, Ruger annoyed its customers by helping set a legal maximum limit on magazine size, to placate the anti-gun lobby and get an advantage over their competition. They’re still in business, and doing fine. Exxon annoyed lots of people, for less intentional “crimes against humanity” - and I’d like to own some of their stock. Ostracism does not work as well as you seem to think it does.
Unless I own, or have legal right to use, the route between my house and the places I want to visit, my right to travel there is subordinate to those who have the legal right to administer those routes. If I wish to travel those rights, I must accede to those demands. Frankly, as little as I like government, I enjoy having several government-guaranteed routes available to me, at a reasonable cost.
No, rallying the citizens has not been particularly productive. Then again, the threat of it has kept most issues from making it particularly needful.