nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Kama

Similar to the sister sub-thread, this is a 'kite' thread, to see which way the wind blows as to whether people would like to discuss aspects of libertarianism in a sustained manner. There was a perception that the previous thread was incoherent, and that a seperate and focused treatment would do the issue more justice; we'll let people vote with their feet (as good libertarians) as to whether to 'slugfest' or attempt a discrete treatment.

The purpose of the thread is for investigation into, and critique or defence of, libertarian social philosophy, and discussion of it's implementation, in past, future or current societies.

Key questions may include:

What is the ethical justification for property rights in libertarianism? Are arguments from natural law, custom, or possession sufficient?

How would a judicial system function in an equitable manner, given an unequal distribution of resources?

Can a libertarian-capitalist market system exist in the absence of state support? As the libertarian agenda can be achieved by meliorist and democratic means within liberal-capitalist societies, why has its success been so limited in scope?

If the deal-breaker of coercion is the initiation of force, when do we take as the start-point? If the origins of a system of property involve force or fraud, how is its unmodified continuance justifiable?

How are contractual subjects constituted? On what grounds is competence based?

Rules-of thumb for posting:

Avoid aggressive behaviours. Strength of opinion is no excuse for rudeness.

Respect the opinions and intelligence of others. Any theory advocated here has likely been supported by smarter men than we; nothing is 'stupid' except refusing to think.

While rhetoric is pretty and often convincing, claims are stronger with evidence.

If an argument is repeatedly ignored, the point is ceded; but a question is more likely to be answered the less friends it brings to the post-party. Phrase accordingly.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Am I the only one who feels a strange affection for the poor Trabant?

Kama

DF, if you read, I admitted there is classical liberal content in the Charter, so there's no shock to be made.

Kama wrote:

There are, undoubtedly, sections which fit well with a demand that the classic liberal rights, so recently extended to the middle classes, also extend those less economically well-endowed. But to limit the movement to purely this, I argue, is indeed selective

...as there is also class-conscious material, the Few and the Many, that is more 'socialist' in character; you appeared not to have been aware of the latter, so those portions are highlighted. Chartism was a mangle of different political-economic tendencies, as was stated, rather than a pure classical-liberal expression, as you attempted to represent it.

As an aside, I don't regard 'socialist' tendencies as necessarily in any way connected with a Marxist genealogy, or egalitarianism as intrinsically something of the left or right. Ideologies, and their poltical expressions, change and mutate, ally and exchange. Its for this reason I tend to reject the more simplistically reduced readings of history, or the subsumption of developments to a single cause. I could, for instance, claim the classic liberal tradition to have been a mere derivative of the groundbreaking developments of the Levellers, with Locke, Mill et al as late-to-the-game imitators of this more fundamental seed of liberty, tolerance, and personal freedom, to take but one example.

And while pasting a series of img's in is no replacement for a reasoned argument, yes, it does look friendlier than the Ford

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Posted this earlier but my crappy pc cut it out for me.

I don't see the Chartists as libertarian or socialist; they seemed more concerned about equity. THey're gripe didn't seem to be with taxes in general but the regressive way that they were applied (they supported paid representatives which would need to be paid out of taxes)
I think the Chartists goals were one which any decent person (socialist or libertarian) could agree with.

Kama

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well, when I'm not being deliberately polemical

, I do seek some kind of mutual understanding. I don't think 'libertarians' have a discursive monopoly on discourses of freedom, nor 'socialists' a monopoly on equality; history seems a more nuanced beast. Projecting current frameworks backwards often conceals more than it reveals; the movements of 'left' and 'right' being the salient example.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

As said, I'm quite against monopoly of interpretation; another view on the Chartists, rather than just 'government off our backs', would be that seeing the gains the middle classes had made in the previous Reform Act, the gains possible from access to the wheels and mechanisms of government were an object. The equity concern was the monopolization of these politico-economic gains by the few, 'Voice' as fungible with material gain; Chartists demanded a share for themselves of the 'welfare' in general terms that could be gained through the State.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

@monellia

When you say that anarchism assumes human nature to be better than it is in relation to non-collective forms of anarchism, I assume you are referring to how it seems to accomodate murderers, rapists and thieves. On the surface, it would seem like there is nothing to prevent psychos from commiting corrupt acts in an anarchical society.

No, I was referring to how anarchism requires all citizens to be committed, even fanatical, anarchists. Liberal democracy works quite well even when actual liberal democrats are a minority in society, with the majority being either disinterested, populists or utopians. It works well because the functioning of individual liberties, and the protection of them, is ring fenced by anti-democratic forces and institutions. Most people dont desire liberty, merely fair masters - the anti-democratic forces ensure that even in such a society, liberty is protected.

Anarchism demands far more from people to protect liberty. More than the vast majority of people can give.

An anarcho-capitalist society would provide private defence agencies and private courts via the free market. Such like criminals in a statist society are kept at bay by the prospect of facing persecution by the state, criminals in an anarcho-capitalist society would be dissuaded from commiting crimes by the prospect of facing these private defence agencies.

For an example of what I mean. Lets say I'm the private defence agency. And you are the peaceful car manufacturer. You pay me to keep your area safe. Fine. Then it comes to renegotiation time.

I have the guns. You dont. You see where this is going? I have the guns, I set the terms. You dont like it? Tough. Eventually, the dividing line between the criminals and the defence agencies will be academic.

Liberal democracy long ago reached a solution for this - its armies are indoctrinated with a brand of patriotism that ensures loyalty to the liberal democratic state. This is reinforced by the state encouraging the average citizen to respect its soldiers on the basis of their patriotism and loyalty to the state. Its near unthinkable in a developed liberal democracy for an army to sieze power from the democratic state.

The other hand is justice - enforcement of the law must come from the community. If someone has committed a crime they must make some restitution or be ostracised or otherwise punished. But theres no state backed police force to impose these punishments. This isnt a problem if anarchists dont like the criminal. But what if the criminal is popular and loved? What if they refuse to accept the judgement, what if they ignore it? The whole system collapses and only those without connections are punished.

The problem with Anarchism is that it says "lets wipe the slate clean, lets ignore all those age old problems, lets ignore all the experience we have built up in dealing with them....because this time its going to be different!"

Its could work - but only if every single human being is a fanatical anarchist, of the same opinion. And guys like Akrasia refuse to even acknowledge theres such a thing as anarcho-capitalism. So thats that theory gone.

Sgt. Sensible

Sand wrote: »

Most people dont desire liberty, merely fair masters -

I believe that's a quote from a 1st century Roman consul, who presumably had many slaves. As Mandy Rice-Davies put it, he would say that wouldn't he. It probably made sense 2000 years ago amongst certain sectors of Roman society but in the 21st century it's just seems a teeny weeny bit creepy and ignorant. Not even the looniest of the loony right would put something like that on their election posters. Can you guess why.

sparkling sea

Libertarianism argues that under a minimal state people could live in utopian communities by the principles that they choose meaning that an individualists could live in capitalists’ communities and the collectivists could live in socialist communities. It is possible that under such a minimal state problems of poverty would be dealt with by philanthropy. However history shows us that in practice the absence of a welfare state would most probably lead to widespread severe poverty.

Even the most sophisticated versions of the Social Contract Theory relies on the assumption that people are free to organise themselves under a government whereas in reality they may not have that freedom or there may be vested interests vying for control, Ireland is a prime example of this.

Also what happens if a particular countries culture was morally reprehensible but yet considered to be the norm. Female genital mutilation is considered to be not only appropriate but also necessary for a woman to have any status in some Muslim countries.

Sand

I believe that's a quote from a 1st century Roman consul, who presumably had many slaves. As Mandy Rice-Davies put it, he would say that wouldn't he. It probably made sense 2000 years ago amongst certain sectors of Roman society but in the 21st century it's just seems a teeny weeny bit creepy and ignorant.

It was quoted by Sallust in his works and was probably invented by him (He was fairly pessimistic regarding mans morality, and nothing since has proven him overly so) , but its allegedly from a letter between King Mithridates and King Arsaces, as Mithridates sought an alliance to resist the Romans in Asia Minor. He was bemoaning that the people and cities of Asia Minor cared little who ruled them or made the laws or taxed them: and by extension they sought fair terms with the Romans rather than resist them or support him in his resistance to Roman domination.

Given that the vast majority of people *still* care little who rules them, who makes the laws or who taxes them, its a point that still stands. Most people cant name their local TDs. Few understand NAMA, perhaps the most critical piece of legislation that has been passed in Ireland for decades. The Lisbon treaty was laughable in that very few people read it - political illiteracy is not a good starting point for defending your liberty.

But people still dont care so long as they have fair masters. The Romans kepts the lid on the plebs with a mixture of bread and circuses for centuries whilst continually eroding their liberty.

Not even the looniest of the loony right would put something like that on their election posters. Can you guess why.

Because theyre trying to win votes and you dont win votes by being honest or realistic. Telling voters theyre politically illiterate and giving them a vote is like giving a monkey a box of hand grenades isnt going to win them over. But I'm not looking for your vote, so Im not interested in winning you over.

Instead you put something like "Hope!" or "Change!" on your election posters. You tell me which insults voters intelligence more?

simplistic

Rather than repeat them every time I make an argument, I wanted to put a few principles out up front, before we begin.

First and foremost, although I am an anarchist, I am not a utopian. There is no social system which will utterly eliminate evil. In a stateless society, there will still be rape, theft, murder and abuse. To be fair, just and reasonable, we must compare a stateless society not to some standard of otherworldly perfection, but rather to the world as it already is. The moral argument for a stateless society includes the reality that it will eliminate a large amount of institutionalized violence and abuse, not that it will result in a perfectly peaceful world, which of course is impossible. Anarchy can be viewed as a cure for cancer and heart disease, not a prescription for endlessly perfect health. It would be unreasonable to oppose a cure for cancer because such a cure did not eliminate all other possible diseases – in the same way, we cannot reasonably oppose a stateless society because some people are bad, and a free society will not make them good.

Secondly, I am not proposing any Manichaean view of human nature in this book. I do not believe that human beings are either innately good, or innately evil. I take a very conservative and majority view, which is that human beings respond to incentives, which also happens to be the basis for the discipline of economics. Human beings are not innately corrupt, but they will inevitably be corrupted by power. Most people will respond to situations and circumstances in a way that maximizes their advantage, not explicitly at the expense of others, though that can happen of course, but we are biological as well as moral beings, and there are very few people who will sacrifice the safety and security of their family in order to follow some abstract moral principle. When human beings are forced to choose between virtue and necessity, they will in general choose necessity, and will then rework their definition of virtue to justify their own actions.

That having been said, it seems very clear that human beings are driven to a very large and deep degree by virtue. A man can almost never be convinced to do what he defines as evil – but if that evil can be redefined as a good, men will almost inevitably praise or perform it. Very few men would agree to murder for payment – but very few men will condemn soldiers as murderers.

Very few people would openly say that they oppose rape, but support the rapists – however, when the same moral equation is redefined as a good, just about everyone says that they oppose the war, but support the troops.

This is one of the lessons that I explicitly take from our existing ruling class, which is that the power of propaganda to redefine evil as good is a fundamental mechanism for controlling people and making them do what you want. Before any government can truly expand, it first needs to take control of the money supply, in order to bribe citizens, and the educational system, in order to indoctrinate children. A large percentage of the army’s communications budget is dedicated to propaganda, and I assume that these people know more than a little about how to best spend money to control the minds of others.

Thus, I do understand that the reason that the debate about a stateless society is so volatile and aggressive is because anarchists are fundamentally attempting to reclaim the definition of virtue in society – and since society as a collective is largely defined by generally-accepted definitions of virtue, the anarchist approach to ethics is an attempt to fundamentally rewrite society as a whole.

Prior attempts to do this have almost always resulted in disaster, because they have always relied on gaining control of the government and using its power to impose some new version of ethics on a disarmed citizenry. The anarchist approach is particularly unsettling because we say that initiating violence to solve social problems is a great evil – perhaps the greatest evil – and so we steadfastly reject and refuse political solutions.

In the current world of governments, not only is political violence used to solve ethical problems, but also the use of such violence is itself considered virtuous and wise. Thus anarchists are entirely above the existing debate, because we are not trying to grab the gun and point it in the direction that we approve of, but rather are pointing out that violence cannot be used to achieve a positive good within society. Thus not only are existing solutions immoral, but the entire methodology for solving problems is based on a moral evil – the initiation of the use of force.

This is a fundamental rewrite of society, and people are right to be concerned and skeptical about the anarchist approach. It is the most fundamental transition that can be imagined – it is the difference between asking how slaves can be treated better, and stating that slavery is an irredeemable moral evil. It is the difference between asking what transgressions children should be beaten for, and stating that beating children is always and forever immoral.

simplistic

There is something about statism, some aspect of it, which profoundly isolates us from our fellow citizens. We turn from animated problem-solvers to mindless defenders of the status quo. As an example, I offer up the inevitable response I receive when I provide an anarchic solution to an existing State function. When I say that theoretical entities called Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) could enforce contracts and protect property, the immediate response is that these DROs will inevitably evolve into a single monopoly that will end up recreating the State that they were supposed to replace.

Or, when I talk about private roads, I inevitably hear the argument that someone could just build a road in a ring around your land and charge you a million dollars every time you wanted to cross it.

Or, when I talk about private defense agencies that can be used to protect a geographical region from invasion, I am promptly informed that those private agencies will simply turn their guns on their subscribers, take them over, and create a new State.

Or, when I discuss the power of economic ostracism as a tool for maintaining order and conformity to basic social and economic rules, I am immediately told that people will be “marked for exclusion” unless they pay hefty bribes to whatever agencies control such information.

It is the same story, over and over – an anarchic solution is provided, and an immediate “disaster scenario” is put forward without thought, without reflection, and without curiosity.

Of course, I am not bothered by the fact that people are critical of a new and volatile theory – I think that is an essential process for any new idea.

What does concern me is the fundamental lack of reciprocity in the minds of the people who thoughtlessly reject creative solutions to trenchant problems.

I don’t mean reciprocity with regards to me – though that is surely lacking as well – but rather with regards to any form of authority or influence in general.

For instance, if people in a geographical region want to contract with an agency or group of agencies for the sake of collective defense, what is the greatest fear that will be first and foremost in their minds?

Naturally, it will be that some defense agency will take their money, buy a bunch of weapons, and promptly enslave them.

How does a free society solve this problem? Well, if there is a market need or demand for collective defense, a number of firms will vie for the business, since it will be so lucrative in the long term. The economic efficiency of having a majority of subscribers would drive the price of such defense down – however, the more people that you enroll in such a contract, the greater everyone’s fear will be that this defense agency will attempt to become a government of some kind.

Thus no entrepreneur will be able to sell this service in the most economically efficient manner if he does not directly and credibly address the fear that he will attempt to create a new government.

We are so used to being on the one-sided receiving end of dictatorial edicts from those in power – whether they are parents, teachers, or government officials, that the very idea that someone is going to have to woo our trust is almost incomprehensible. “If I am afraid of something that someone wants to sell me, then it is up to that person to calm my fears if he wants my business” – this is so far from our existing ways of dealing with statist authority that we might as well be inventing a new planet.

It is so important to understand that when we are talking about a free society – and I will tell you later how this habit is so essential for your happiness even if anarchism never comes to pass – we are essentially talking about two sides of a negotiation table.

When it comes to government as it is – and all that government ever could be – we are never really talking about two sides of the table. You get a letter in the mail informing you that your property taxes are going to increase 5% – there is no negotiation; no one offers you an alternative; your opinion is not consulted beforehand, and your approval is not required afterwards, because if you do not pay the increased tax, you will, after a fairly lengthy sequence of letters and phone calls, end up without a house.

It is certainly true that your local cable company may also send you a notice that they’re going to increase their charges by 5%, but that is still a negotiation! You can switch to satellite, or give up on cable and rent DVDs of movies or television shows, or reduce some of the extra features that you have, or just decide to get rid of your television and read and talk instead.

None of these options are available with the government – with the government, you either pay them, give up your house, go to jail, or move to some other country, where the exact same process will start all over again.

Can you imagine getting this letter from your cable company?

Dear Valued Customer:

Your cable bill is now increasing 5% per month. You cannot cancel your cable. Ever. You cannot reduce your bill in any way. If you turn off your cable, your bill will remain exactly the same. If you rip your cable out of the wall, your bill will remain exactly the same, with the exception that we will charge you for the damage. Your children will be unable to cancel your cable contract.

Also, please note that we will be reducing our delivery of channels by approximately 1 every month. As we deliver fewer channels, you can anticipate that your bill will sharply increase.

If you do not pay your bill on time, the ownership of your house will revert to us, and we will lock you in an undisclosed location, where you will be forced to do tech support, and where we will be unable to protect you from assault and rape.

If you attempt to defend yourself when we come to take your house, we are fully authorized to gun you down.

Sincerely,

The Statist Cable Company

We would consider this kind of letter to be utterly criminal – and we would be outraged at the dictatorial one-sidedness of the letter, as well as the threats of violence it contained.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of communication that we get from our governments all the time – and in many ways, it is not unrelated to the kind of non-negotiated dictums that we received from our teachers when we were children.

Thus, when a philosopher of anarchy proposes private solutions to public services, we automatically and almost unconsciously feel that we are back on the receiving end of one-sided and dictatorial commandments, and fear this multiplicity of small “quasi-governments,” and imagine that instead of receiving a few such ugly letters a year, we shall get perhaps dozens per month.

However, if you do not understand that anarchism is always and forever a two-sided negotiation, then you will remain forever untempted by its rational and empirical pleasures, and continue to confuse coercion with voluntarism, which is about the most fundamental error that can be made in moral understanding.

If you feel the need for collective defense, but you are afraid that whoever you contract with for such defense will end up ruling over you, you can just sit back, put your feet up on the desk, clasp your hands behind your head, and just see who comes along with an offer that satisfies you.

Once you grasp this fundamental shift in thinking – in understanding – then you can “flip over” to the other side of the table and use your real creative mojo to start solving the problem.

In this way, you can ask yourself, “If I really wanted to sell collective defense services to a group, how could I best address and alleviate their fears that I would turn into some kind of local dictator?”

What do you think? If you could personally make $10 million a year by solving this problem, what would you come up with? How would you address and alleviate people’s fears that you would take their money, go buy an army, and rule over them?

There are as many creative and productive answers as there are people interested in the problem – here’s one that occurs to me, just off the top of my head…

I would deposit $5 million in a third-party bank account, and offer it as free payment to anyone who could prove that I was not fulfilling my contract with my customers to the letter. I would publish my accounts and inventory as widely as possible, and give free access to anyone who wanted to come by and inspect my business and its holdings.

In this way, people could rest assured that I was not amassing some secret army of black helicopters and men in robot suits.

“Ah,” you may say, “but what if no one wanted to come forward and perform these kinds of inspections?”

Again, that is easy to solve. I would just pay an organization $1 million a year to audit my business – and promise them that if they ever found me accumulating any kind of secret army or weaponry, then I would then pay them the $5 million in the third party bank account. In this way, external audits would be certain to be performed, and those auditors would have every incentive to turn over every filing cabinet in search of a miniature robot army.

“Ah,” you may say, “but what if you were secretly paying this auditing organization $2 million a year to only pretend to audit your business?”

Well, here we are starting to get into some very strange economic territory, which would be utterly unsustainable in a free market, because my company would then be out $5 million up front, be paying $1 million for an auditing company, and then a further $2 million to produce fake audits – such a company would never be able to offer competitive rates relative to a company that operated on the up and up.

But even if this were possible, it would still be an easy problem to solve, by simply paying five companies to perform audits if necessary – paying $5 million a year out of a profit of $10 million a year still leaves you $5 million ahead!

“Ah, but what if..?”

We all know that this game can go on for forever and a day – the mindset that I strongly urge you to try and get yourself into, however, is that you do not have to contract with anyone who is not willing to satisfy your desires!

silverharp

Simplistic, I assume thats an extract from this?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3867604/FDR-5-Practical-Anarchy

you might enjoy this piece of the Mises site

Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism
http://mises.org/daily/3791

simplistic

Yeah that site is amazing ! I was exposed to it about 9 months ago and I really struggled with it. It literally tore my conception of reality apart but I just couldnt break the logic the ideas. I have a very entrepreneurial brain and I loved the creative solutions to the problems of statism!

Is there any libertarian groups in Ireland? Id love to meet up with some like minded people. The only ones I can find are the anarcho-socialists and I really dont understand how that ideology is even possible.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cavedave

While on the subject of "disaster scenario" what would you think the government should do about the floods at the moment? I think there is a role for government intervention in disaster relief.

But I have heard many of the areas flooded have been flooded multiple times recently (5 times since 2000 was one example). I feel it is fairly unfair to expect emergency workers to rescue you on a biannual basis.

What is the libertarian opinion on dealing with the floods?

Sand

My guess? Emergency services would probably be provided on an insurance basis, with premiums for particular risks...like builing your house on a flood plain. Charitable organisations would fill any gaps as well Id suppose.

Because everyone is assumed to be rational, everyone would get insurance. Insurance would be acceptably priced because there would be no barriers to entry so no scope for suppliers to fix prices.

The above piece doesnt effectively address the militias/mercenaries siezing power angle effectively to my eyes.

1 - it assumes the leader of the mercenaries is a committed anarcho-capitalist, who will enter the process honestly. Laws arent enforced through the assumption everyone is good.

2 - the 5 million bounty for anyone who can prove he has nefarious designs on his neighbours presents two problems: Who is this proved to? Dont they and the auditors have 5 million reasons to prove the merc leader has some evil designs? We are again assuming they are all either committed anarcho - capitalists, or as the author assumes, motivated by monetary gain. One is more likely than the other.

3 - the article assumes the mercs would need a miniature robot army. Vast swathes of the world are controlled by warlords who have only a few hundred men and small arms. It also assumes that a military build up would be detectable - we can safely assume a credible military deterrent is going to need artillery pieces, armour, complicated logistics and so on. I am reminded of a book by Ken MaCleod where an anarcho-capitalist society, where security was handled by mercs who resolved disputes through complex prediction of the result of an actual military conflict which was then adhered to were overrun by anarcho-socialists who simply waged war the old fashioned way.

Given the need for such a deterrent, whose going to determine the dividing line between whats needed? Especially as the mercs will have been hired for their expertise, so can be assumed to have the better idea of what they need to provide security.

4 - a vast amount of money is tied up in dead ends; acting as bounties to incentivise auditors. It doesnt seem especially economically efficient.

The author asks that anarcho-capitalism not be compared to a perfect utopia. Which is acceptable, but even compared to the existing reality of proffessional, volunteer state militaries which accept civillian leadership the anarcho-capitalist solution only offers a different way of achieving the same end, but with less economic efficiency and a greater chance of military rule. Renaissance Italy was dominated by mercenary organisations, who when they werent busily stabbing their masters in the back, where unrealiable and less than excellent on the field. The only notable exception being the Swiss Guards of the pope who were motivated by religion to a great degree.

silverharp

Also one could guess that there is an element of moral hazard here, as some people benefit from the planning process yet dont have to bear the cost of river defense and then expect to be bailed out (no pun intended) at no cost. Remember people getting compensation in 2001 in Ringsend in Dublin.

There might be some interesting solutions if the rivers were privatised , then there would be a much more joined approach beteen the parties concerned.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What possible alternative fallback could someone who has a large family, works two jobs (or has no job) and is below the poverty line have? Poverty level in states as a whole for single parent black families is 44% http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/pov/new03_100_06.htm , so its not like im picking a really extreme example...

And not that im an expert on what happened after Katrina, but surely its an example of a monumental mismanagement of the cleanup/rebuilding effort by government, not an argument against effective, well thought out rebuilding based on the interests of the people who live there. Additionally, Bush's government used the disaster as a way of savaging the social capital of the city (not rebuilding public schools/hospitals in poor, black areas who dont vote conservative anyway) for the ideals of neo liberalism.

cavedave

donegalfella

Big government social programs presume a contract between the citizen and the state: Give us your money, and we'll be there when you need us. But look at Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as an instructive example of what can happen when people rely on the government as their only fallback.

National defense "presume a contract between the citizen and the state: Give us your money, and we'll be there when you need us". Rand as far as i understand her was in favor of this Government intervention. Do you disagree with it?

simplistic

Sand wrote: »

My guess? Emergency services would probably be provided on an insurance basis, with premiums for particular risks...like builing your house on a flood plain. Charitable organisations would fill any gaps as well Id suppose.

Because everyone is assumed to be rational, everyone would get insurance. Insurance would be acceptably priced because there would be no barriers to entry so no scope for suppliers to fix prices.

The above piece doesnt effectively address the militias/mercenaries siezing power angle effectively to my eyes.

1 - it assumes the leader of the mercenaries is a committed anarcho-capitalist, who will enter the process honestly. Laws arent enforced through the assumption everyone is good.

All of your questions are answered in here, but ill try and sum it up as much as I can.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3867604/FDR-5-Practical-Anarchy

Like you said there is no barrier to entry their will be multiple defence agencys.

Sand wrote: »

2 - the 5 million bounty for anyone who can prove he has nefarious designs on his neighbours presents two problems: Who is this proved to? Dont they and the auditors have 5 million reasons to prove the merc leader has some evil designs? We are again assuming they are all either committed anarcho - capitalists, or as the author assumes, motivated by monetary gain. One is more likely than the other.

Take for example a town with a population of 1000 may have 4 or 5 different defence agencys. So it is in each agencys best interest to find out a if one of the others has a master plan of death. Also as a consumer youll only deal with a defence agency that has the most safegaurds. eg independant reviews etc.

Sand wrote: »

3 - the article assumes the mercs would need a miniature robot army. Vast swathes of the world are controlled by warlords who have only a few hundred men and small arms. It also assumes that a military build up would be detectable - we can safely assume a credible military deterrent is going to need artillery pieces, armour, complicated logistics and so on. I am reminded of a book by Ken MaCleod where an anarcho-capitalist society, where security was handled by mercs who resolved disputes through complex prediction of the result of an actual military conflict which was then adhered to were overrun by anarcho-socialists who simply waged war the old fashioned way.

All defence agencys exist in a total freemarket so you cant just tax your customers if you decide you want to build an army and take over. Again try and think of it as if you were a consumer what checks and balances would you like? The very fear that a DRO could take over will create a huge demand for rock solid contracts.

As for an external attack. There is no centralised power or tax base if sombody was to try to take over they would have to destroy all of the dros and then start building a government around a society where all land is privatly owned so they will have know idea as to how many people in the society have weapons and hate governments.

Sand wrote: »

iding line between whats needed? Especially as the mercs will have been hired for their expertise, so can be assumed to have the better idea of what they need to provide security.

4 - a vast amount of money is tied up in dead ends; acting as bounties to incentivise auditors. It doesnt seem especially economically efficient.

The author asks that anarcho-capitalism not be compared to a perfect utopia. Which is acceptable, but even compared to the existing reality of proffessional, volunteer state militaries which accept civillian leadership the anarcho-capitalist solution only offers a different way of achieving the same end, but with less economic efficiency and a greater chance of military rule. Renaissance Italy was dominated by mercenary organisations, who when they werent busily stabbing their masters in the back, where unrealiable and less than excellent on the field. The only notable exception being the Swiss Guards of the pope who were motivated by religion to a great degree.

simplistic

Joycey wrote: »

What possible alternative fallback could someone who has a large family, works two jobs (or has no job) and is below the poverty line have? Poverty level in states as a whole for single parent black families is 44% http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/pov/new03_100_06.htm , so its not like im picking a really extreme example...

And not that im an expert on what happened after Katrina, but surely its an example of a monumental mismanagement of the cleanup/rebuilding effort by government, not an argument against effective, well thought out rebuilding based on the interests of the people who live there. Additionally, Bush's government used the disaster as a way of savaging the social capital of the city (not rebuilding public schools/hospitals in poor, black areas who dont vote conservative anyway) for the ideals of neo liberalism.

The real question is should violence(taxation) be used against me to pay for sombody elses short commings?

pagancornflake

simplistic wrote: »

The real question is should violence(taxation) be used against me to pay for sombody elses short commings?

Taxation is not violence. Also, I don't see how someone from a disadvantaged area getting hit by a hurricane amounts to a "shortcoming".

cavedave

pagancornflake

Taxation is not violence. Also, I don't see how someone from a disadvantaged area getting hit by a hurricane amounts to a "shortcoming".

Have you not paid and seen what happens?

“The Tale of the Slave”
from Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pp. 290-292.

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.
7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?

simplistic

pagancornflake wrote: »

Taxation is not violence. Also, I don't see how someone from a disadvantaged area getting hit by a hurricane amounts to a "shortcoming".

Ok Ive stopped paying taxes and Ive also decided that Im not going to court and after that Ive decided I dont want to go to prison. What do you think will happen to me?

The Gardai will arrive at the house with a box of chocolates and voucher for a half an hour massage!

simplistic

I heard this the other day and I think it holds quite true .

" People on the right like being told what to by their fathers , people on the left like to be mothered and libertarians are grown ups that take responsibility for their own lives"

- On the psychology of people and how they project their concepts onto the world.