I, Pencil

[Borodog]

This post relates to one of my favorite essays of all time, another oldie but goody, I, Pencil (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html), by Leonard Read. The introduction (which stangely comes after the essay; don't ask me why) and the afterword are also brilliant. Anyone who has read my posts in SMP and Politics knows that I am an amateur student of both economics and evolution. I believe one can greatly inform the other. Just as Nature needs no "intelligent designer" to create vastly complex highly adapted organisms, human society needs no central planner to create incredibly complex achievements.

[ QUOTE ]
There are two kinds of thinking: simplistic and subtle. Simplistic thinkers cannot understand how complex and useful social orders arise from any source other than conscious planning by a purposeful mind. Subtle thinkers, in contrast, understand that individual actions often occur within settings that encourage individuals to coordinate their actions with one another independent of any overarching plan. F. A. Hayek called such unplanned but harmonious coordination "spontaneous order."
<font color="white"> . </font>
The mark of the subtle mind is not only its ability to grasp the idea of spontaneous orders but also to understand that conscious attempts to improve or to mimic these orders are doomed to fail. "Why so?" asks the simplistic thinker. "How can happenstance generate complex order superior to what a conscious mind can conceive and implement?" In responding to this question, a subtle thinker points out that spontaneous orders do not arise from happenstance: the continual adjustments by each individual within spontaneous orders follow a very strict logic—the logic of mutual accommodation. Because no central planner can possibly know all of the details of each individual's unique situation, no central planner can know how best to arrange each and every action of each and every individual with that of the multitudes of other individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have argued before that I see the same fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantium ("I cannot think of how X could be possible, therefore it is not.") in the arguments of both creationists and statists. In the evolution/creation debate it usually goes like this: I cannot personally imagine an evolutionary mechanism to produce this structure or that behavior; therefore it cannot have evolved, therefore it must have been designed by a designer. In the statists' arguments, it goes like this: I personally cannot imagine a free market mechanism to produce this good or that service; therefore it cannot be produced privately, therefore it must be produced by government. The first is the God of the Gaps, the second I call the Government of the Gaps.

Hopefully reading I, Pencil will give you some insight as to why I believe the free market is capable of providing any good or service far better than a centrally planned monopoly ever could, even if I personally cannot provide every detail of exactly how. Of course I cannot provide such a description. If I could provide such a description, it would imply that such a production structure could be effectively centrally planned, which it cannot. I don't have all the information. The best that can be hoped for is to provide plausible mechanisms that are logically consistent, and look for empirical evidence of similar private productions structures in the historical record or around the world in current human societies to support the idea. I see this as exactly analogous to the evolutionary biologist, who can never prove the precise timing or order of evolutionary changes from tens of million of years ago. he simply doesn't have access to the all the information. He attempts to provide plausible evolutionary mechanisms that are logically consistent, and attempts to find evidence in the fossil record or the genomes of modern animals.

I, Pencil (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html), Leonard Read.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I, Pencil (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html), Leonard Read.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fantastic essay.

[madnak]

I like the essay, and i think it makes some very important points. I think a lot of people on both sides of these issues can learn a lot here. I particularly like the theme of wonder. I think a lot of people hate evolution and libertarianism because they believe that somehow these ideas have the power to sap wonder and imagination from the world. The same can be said of science and technology, many people seem to have the view that the fields are colorless and sterile and inhuman. I think a lot of scientists fall into the same trap - feeling that they aren't human, or that wonder and imagination are quaint and primitive.

Personally I think the most important thing right now is to infuse change and learning with a real sense of excitement and awe. It seems extremely inappropriate that learning and exploring are seen as "dull" and "dangerous" by so many people, because they really should be recognized as being anything but.

[KipBond]

Nice post. I do plan on reading that article, as well as doing some more research on these issues. I do have a few preliminary points/questions, however:

[ QUOTE ]
In the evolution/creation debate it usually goes like this: I cannot personally imagine an evolutionary mechanism to produce this structure or that behavior; therefore it cannot have evolved, therefore it must have been designed by a designer. In the statists' arguments, it goes like this: I personally cannot imagine a free market mechanism to produce this good or that service; therefore it cannot be produced privately, therefore it must be produced by government. The first is the God of the Gaps, the second I call the Government of the Gaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a better/different analogy would be an "evolutionist" who claims that man cannot improve on natural/biological evolution. We should try to mimic biological evolution where possible, or just not interfere at all. I think this view would be extremely short-sighted, however, as being evolved creatures, we *can* improve on evolution, and we've done it quite a bit, and I look forward to seeing how far we can go by engineering our own evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully reading I, Pencil will give you some insight as to why I believe the free market is capable of providing any good or service far better than a centrally planned monopoly ever could, even if I personally cannot provide every detail of exactly how.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand what you mean by "free market", then I think I disagree. Most of the time, yes, but not always. I think for certain things, it is necessary for society to have a centralized control of certain resources, as well as guide development of others. For instance, air &amp; water. They are natural resources that I think need government controls to make sure that an individual doesn't ruin it for the rest of us. Then there's big stuff like: military/defense, central intelligence, highway infrastructure.

I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property? If the government is allowed to pool resources for certain community benefits, is it also allowed to take control of someone else's property (ie: eminent domain)?

[KipBond]

I finished reading the article. Very nice.

The conclusion spoke of the mail system, and how a free market could do that rather than the government doing it. I say: true, and they do. UPS, Fed-Ex, Airborne Express, and others. How has the government hindered the free market in this area? Couldn't the free market create a more efficient, and cost-effective mail system? Why hasn't it?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property? If the government is allowed to pool resources for certain community benefits, is it also allowed to take control of someone else's property (ie: eminent domain)?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Anarchocapitalist Bible (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp)

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes. Those aren't the hard questions. The hard questions involve the stuff you mentioned earlier, like national protection and the environment.

An extremely provocative, well-reasoned, and interesting (whether you agree with it or not) book on that stuff is The Machinery of Freedom (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.html), by David Friedman -- Patri Friedman's father, incidentally. (This is the only forum where he'd be described as Patri Friedman's father rather than Milton Friedman's son. /images/graemlins/wink.gif )

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property? If the government is allowed to pool resources for certain community benefits, is it also allowed to take control of someone else's property (ie: eminent domain)?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Anarchocapitalist Bible (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp)

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a Cliff Notes version? If a non-Christian wanted to know how to be saved, a Christian pointing them to the Bible would not be much help.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
How has the government hindered the free market in this area? Couldn't the free market create a more efficient, and cost-effective mail system? Why hasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it's illegal. The government has outlawed competing with the post office. It has carved out exceptions for "extremely urgent" mail or some such, which is why UPS and FedEx are allowed to exist. But it's illegal to engage in the business of delivering ordinary mail.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes. Those aren't the hard questions. The hard questions involve the stuff you mentioned earlier, like national protection and the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I printed out the wikipedia article on anarchocapitalism &amp; libertarinism. So, anarchocapitalism would have a government (so, the "anarcho" prefix is a bit of a misnomer). I'm curious to find out where anarchocapitalism would say government should stop (and why).

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How has the government hindered the free market in this area? Couldn't the free market create a more efficient, and cost-effective mail system? Why hasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it's illegal. The government has outlawed competing with the post office. It has carved out exceptions for "extremely urgent" mail or some such, which is why UPS and FedEx are allowed to exist. But it's illegal to engage in the business of delivering ordinary mail.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Wow. I didn't know that. I think that's absurd. What was the rationale behind that? And, now that USPS is also doing "urgent mail", then how is this consistent?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a Cliff Notes version?

[/ QUOTE ]
The book I just recommended by David Friedman has a few chapters that are webbed. The chapter on what a legal system would look like without government involvement is worthwhile: Police, Courts, and Laws -- on the Market (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html).

I don't think there's any way to present an overall case for a purely free market that is both short and persuasive. It's the kind of thing that has to be argued for issue by issue, and each issue presents different problems. So if you're interested in mail delivery, I can find a short piece on that. Or if you're interested in school systems, I can find a short piece on that. But if you're intrested in an overall argument that covers all the major issues, I don't think it's possible to do so in a short piece. (But if you can sit through a book-length argument, I do highly recommend Professor Friedman's book.)

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I printed out the wikipedia article on anarchocapitalism &amp; libertarinism. So, anarchocapitalism would have a government (so, the "anarcho" prefix is a bit of a misnomer).

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the Wikipedia article, but no, anarcho-capitalism would not involve a government (although it becomes a semantic issue on what qualifies as a government). In general, libertarians who favor a small government are called "minarchists" while libertarians who favor no government are called "anarchists" or "anarcho-capitalists." Most libertarians are minarchists.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious to find out where anarchocapitalism would say government should stop (and why).

[/ QUOTE ]
Minarchists don't have a unanimous voice on that.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How has the government hindered the free market in this area? Couldn't the free market create a more efficient, and cost-effective mail system? Why hasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it's illegal. The government has outlawed competing with the post office. It has carved out exceptions for "extremely urgent" mail or some such, which is why UPS and FedEx are allowed to exist. But it's illegal to engage in the business of delivering ordinary mail.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Wow. I didn't know that. I think that's absurd. What was the rationale behind that? And, now that USPS is also doing "urgent mail", then how is this consistent?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really know any more than what's in the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Monopoly_status). I do remember reading of a local letter carrier that was shut down by the government a few years ago because it was delivering letters for ten cents each.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, anarchocapitalism would have a government (so, the "anarcho" prefix is a bit of a misnomer).

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the Wikipedia article, but no, anarcho-capitalism would not involve a government (although it becomes a semantic issue on what qualifies as a government).

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you said "yes":

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes. Those aren't the hard questions. The hard questions involve the stuff you mentioned earlier, like national protection and the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

If no government, then how are private property rights protected? And how is the monetary system ensured? I guess of all the anarcho issues that I want to know about, those would be the most basic. #1: How are rights secured? How are laws created/enforced? I'll read those links you posted above.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's any way to present an overall case for a purely free market that is both short and persuasive. It's the kind of thing that has to be argued for issue by issue, and each issue presents different problems. So if you're interested in mail delivery, I can find a short piece on that. Or if you're interested in school systems, I can find a short piece on that. But if you're intrested in an overall argument that covers all the major issues, I don't think it's possible to do so in a short piece. (But if you can sit through a book-length argument, I do highly recommend Professor Friedman's book.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is preceisely why I linked to the essay and brought up my theory about most people's absolute faith in a "Government of the Gaps." I just want people to get into the mindset where they will even admit the possibility that the private sector could provide for things like roads, police, or courts. So many times I will have a long, bloody debate about, for example, private road systems, all of similar structure: "How can the private sector. . .? I don't see how . . . It is impossible to believe . . . It's absurd to think that the private sector could . . . I can't think of a profit motive for . . ." And on and on and on. I will carefully explain plausible mechanisms for how the private sector could provide answers for each point. After all, there are reams of scholarly work available on the private provision of roads, or water, or clean air, or preserving endangered species, or national defense, or the police, or the courts. But then, almost inevitably, the debate turns like this: "Well, maybe. But what about X? How can the private sector. . .? I don't see how . . . It is impossible to believe . . . It's absurd to think that the private sector could . . . I can't think of a profit motive for . . ."

I read the essay, I, Pencil and it makes it fundamentally clear that the default position should be that until proven otherwise, the free market can provide for anything.

It the free market can bring literally millions of people peacefully together to create a pencil that is demanded by a small fraction of the population, and none of these millions actually want the pencil, is there really any doubt that it could provide for something that the vast majority of people want, clean air? I don't even have to think of a mechanism, and it is implicitly obvious that the market can do this if it's only allowed to.

And then I investigate, and lo and behold I find there is a mountain of scholarly research on how private property rights act to keep air clean, and government environmental regulation acts in the exact opposite direction.

Kip mentioned water. I don't know about you, but every good necessary to life is plentiful and cheap and always in supply . . . except the ones managed by government. There is never a shortage of hamburgers, or Levis, but every goddamned summer where I live you can bet your ass there is a shortage of water. I could explain how local governments create water shortages by destroying the price signals that would otherwise equilibrate water provision and consumption, but would it matter? Would the reader then move on to the mail? Or the roads? Or the police? Or the courts? Or the bakeries? Or . . .

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
If no government, then how are private property rights protected? And how is the monetary system ensured? I guess of all the anarcho issues that I want to know about, those would be the most basic. #1: How are rights secured? How are laws created/enforced? I'll read those links you posted above.

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Money predates the state, so clearly a government is not required for a money supply to exist. In fact, government monopolization of the money supply has been an unmitigated disaster, more than you can imagine before you've done the research on it.

B) Yes, property rights can be protected by the private sector. See for example The Private Production of Defense (http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf).

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in hearing how a truly "free market" would function -- and what if any involvement government would have. For instance, would it ensure transactions (monetary system?)? Would it protect private property? If the government is allowed to pool resources for certain community benefits, is it also allowed to take control of someone else's property (ie: eminent domain)?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Anarchocapitalist Bible (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp)

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a Cliff Notes version? If a non-Christian wanted to know how to be saved, a Christian pointing them to the Bible would not be much help.

[/ QUOTE ]
Meh, spend more time in Politics. AC seems to be about half the threads nowadays. PVN, Borodog, The Don are the resident ACers, and they can answer your questions. Whether you'll accept the answers is another thing entirely...

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you said "yes":

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood your questions, but I meant yes, a purely free market would have a monetary system and yes, it would protect property rights.

[ QUOTE ]
If no government, then how are private property rights protected? And how is the monetary system ensured?

[/ QUOTE ]
The link to Friedman's chapter I gave above sketches this out, but the very short answer is: private property rights are already being protected by private actors, both in the form of private security guards and in the form of private arbitration.

On a private monetary system, go here (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa017.html) and scroll down to "Private or Public Money" and then "The Private Alternative."

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, spend more time in Politics. AC seems to be about half the threads nowadays. PVN, Borodog, The Don are the resident ACers, and they can answer your questions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or, you could actually read the original thinkers, like Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, Ludwig von Mises (who would not have identified himself as an anarchocapitalist, but essentially demolished the idea of government when he showed that the paradox between the supposed necessity of state production of security and the universally bad results of monopoly can only be resolved if participation is voluntary; if you can unsubscribe from your government and subscribe to another at any time, it is no longer a government), etc. They make the same points with infinitely more clarity than I could ever hope to.

And then make up your own mind. It will probably take some years. It did for me. I was a libertarian/Constitutionalist for a long time. And then one day it just clicked, two things. 1) There is no biolerplate text that you can write into a constitution that can resist the self interest of human beings in whom governmental power has been invested, and 2) There is simply no good or service that should both be provided for, and that can better be provided for by monopoly than by free market competition.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, you could actually read the original thinkers, like Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, Ludwig von Mises

[/ QUOTE ]
I already pointed him towards one. He wants the cliff notes version and you give him more reading assignments?

[MathEconomist]

I'm not really going to get involved in this. Except to point out that there are very few professional economists who believe that free markets can provide for all needs. There is a reason most of these types of arguments are advanced by people with little or no formal training in economics.

[The Don]

Great essay.

Anyway, I like Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom is a bit better than Rothbard's For a New Liberty although both go over most of the major issues wonderfully (Rothbard does a better job of point out the deficiencies of the state). The primary difference between the two is that Rothbard is a strong advocate of natural rights while Friedman is a consequentialist (he merely believes it to be the best system). I used to think that recognition of Rothbard's dogmatic natural rights philosophy was necessary for an anarchocapitalist society to be viable because it seemed like, throughout history, masses of people only took to ideas which were pseudo-religious in nature. Friedman really changed that for me (and I think he does a better job hypothesizing various possiblities).

Reading Mises' Human Action is probably the 'best' way to grasp the basis of why there is no necessity for government though.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going to get involved in this. Except to point out that there are very few professional economists who believe that free markets can provide for all needs. There is a reason most of these types of arguments are advanced by people with little or no formal training in economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the "professional economists" are the same people who believe that it is possible to quantify human action (and you are one of them as your handle suggests).

[MathEconomist]

You obviously know little or nothing about what economists do. I won't try to stop you from exposing your ignorance, but you should at least be made aware of it.

[The Don]

Ok, explain to me how math in the field of economics is anything more than mental gymanstics. Explain to me how abstact numbers can accurately represent the decisions of individuals. Explain to me how the myriad of absurd assumptions you make is in anyway related to the real world or actual human action. I would really like to know what "economists" do and how they do it, since I am so ignorant on the subject.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going to get involved in this. Except to point out that there are very few professional economists who believe that free markets can provide for all needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most professional economists are either paid by governments, or are trained by economists paid by government. Go figure.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a reason most of these types of arguments are advanced by people with little or no formal training in economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, "most of these types of arguments" are advanced by people with vast formal training in economics. Perhaps you'd like to compare your CV to Mises', Rothbard's, or Hoppe's.

[MathEconomist]

I have better things to do than teach you economics for free. If you want to learn about the field, go sign up for some graduate courses at your local university, or you can PM me and I'll tutor you for $50/hr. The criticisms of people who decry the amount of mathematical modeling and formalism in economics usually come off as the sour grapes of people who aren't talented enough to understand their purpose. Economics isn't about mathing up human behavior, it's about exploring the regularities that exist and understanding the reasons for them. I'm sorry you're ignorant of the ways in which mathematics and modeling helps this.

[BCPVP]

The AC War has spilled over into SMP! Which's next? Sporting Events?!?!

[MathEconomist]

[ QUOTE ]
Most professional economists are either paid by governments, or are trained by economists paid by government. Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so wrong it's ridiculous. Most economoists will never work for a government institution of any sort at any point during their career. Nor do most get the majority of their training from people who have worked for a government. And besides that, training in economics isn't ideological in nature, it's learning how to study these issues. It's neither a coincidence nor a conspiracy that most economists come to a conclusion different than yours.

I have no interest in debating you; I have better uses for my time. I just think people here who might be easily seduced by this stuff ought to know that much of it isn't taken very seriously by most serious scholars.

[Borodog]

Are you claiming that most economists do not receive their training at state-funded universities? Do you have some evidence of this? My good friend with a Ph.D. in economics assures me that it is undoubtably the case that the vast majority of economists are trained in state-funded institutions.

[Borodog]

I'd still like to see the comparison of your CV and Rothbard's. Surely you've produced some work that can rival, for example Man, Economy, and State (http://www.mises.org/store/Man-Economy-and-State-with-Power-and-Market-The-Scholars-Edition-P177C18.aspx), since you can so easily dismiss his ideas.

Have you even read the stuff you're dismissing?

[MathEconomist]

Two final points:

1) Working at a state university doesn't really qualify one as a government employee, though this idiotic insistence on technicalities is for some reason typical of people like you. And many economists go to private universities, though there is no difference in the training they receive.

2) Almost no professional economists take these Austrian economists seriously, and for good reason. Though I have read some of their work and am generally unimpressed.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that most economists do not receive their training at state-funded universities? Do you have some evidence of this? My good friend with a Ph.D. in economics assures me that it is undoubtably the case that the vast majority of economists are trained in state-funded institutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

For a guy who hands out reading assignments like an English professor (" go and read Rothbard, von Mises, and Hoppe and then we'll talk") -- it's highly ironic, hypocritical and telling that when you make a claim like "most economists are paid for and trained by the state", the best empirical evidence you can provide is "my good friend the Ph.D assures me."

Would 5 minutes on Google be too time consuming, or should we just accept your second-hand hearsay prima facie?

Hint for the ACers on this board who pride themselves in their 'logic' and 'consistency':

YOU MAKE THE CLAIM, YOU DEFEND IT WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, NOT USELESS ANECDOTAL OBSERVATION!

Also not: "you make the claim, are questioned on it's veracity, then demand the opposition prove it's non-belief of the crap you can't prove."



This kind of stuff is a joke:

Boro: "Most professional economists are either paid by governments, or are trained by economists paid by government."

Math: "No they don't"

Boro: "Are you claiming that most economists do not receive their training at state-funded universities? Do you have some evidence of this?"

Yes, yes, I realize Math is making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims as well -- so clearly you're both guilty. But I obviously get irrationally emotional when I read things like this. How in the world can you make a claim, then when someone doubts your claim, demand that THEY produce evidence to contradict the claim YOU NEVER PROVED?

I don't understand. Someone explain.

[Il_Mostro]

You like to say that economic laws come from applying logic to unrefutable assumptions, more or less, right? Isn't there a contradiction here? If economic laws come from introspection and logical analysis, why can't you use math to quantify it?

I agree that you can't use math to quantify the behaviour of a single person, but surely you can use it in quantifying the behaviour of large groups of people? The laws of supply and demand would be an example of that.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that you can't use math to quantify the behaviour of a single person, but surely you can use it in quantifying the behaviour of large groups of people? The laws of supply and demand would be an example of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of that is really based on probability. For instance, there's a theoretical chance that everyone on the planet will simultaneously decide to eschew material possessions and go train in monasteries. Economics can describe general patterns, but it can't make specific predictions. Also, economics is highly speculative and involves the study of certain existing structures and the patterns that are found within those structures. There has never been a free market in reality, so any economist's opinion on the subject amounts to almost pure conjecture. The attempts to consider anarchy by extrapolating from data gathered within the context of a statist economy are of questionable validity.

I think the appeals to authority on both sides here are destructive to the conversation. I would love to see the debate continue, but personally I'd get much more out of it if there were more debate and less name-calling.

[MidGe]

The problem, as I see it, with AC, is that it is not altruistic. Govenments, to keep in power, have to spend money altruistically (pork barelling) which is money spend sometimes, at least, for the commonwealth good not only for special and priviledged interests.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a reason most of these types of arguments are advanced by people with little or no formal training in economics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you name the major players in the A-C movement who do not have formal training in economics? Most of them do.

[madnak]

AC is as altruistic as the population. No more, no less. There are two major differences. The first is that people are not forced into charity - there is no gun pointing at the wealthy person's head forcing him to cover the poor person's health care costs. The second is that charity is likely to be much more efficient under AC. I agree it's unfortunate if nobody wants to help the disadvantaged, but the alternative is de facto military compulsion.

The premise of AC is to prevent the consolidation of power into some centralized institution. This is naturally likely to increase the variance of wealth and to distribute it more evenly. I think it's a myth that capitalism tends to make the rich richer and the poor poorer - what encourages that tendency is actually government protection of wealth.

The collaborative nature of a free market is really under emphasized. People go on and on about the potential for competition, but there is also a greater potential for collaboration. If a group of people want to start a project, they are free to do so. They can all act as equal agents without being limited by the government. This gives tremendous power to charities and other altruistic organizations. Competition also ensures that charities accomplish their goals in the best possible way. "Competing" to help those less fortunate is often a form of cooperation (think charity auctions). It can be a playful competition, not necessarily a cut-throat competition. Also a free market may allow private organizations to create profitable ways to help the less fortunate.

Of course, charity will be transparent. If a man in New York City pays for roads to be built in southern Utah, that is an act of charity. This is always the case - but when the New Yorker's tax money is used to build roads in Utah he may not be aware that's where his money is going. And if he is, there's not much he can do about it - if he refuses to pay taxes he'll be thrown into jail. So, for example, some of the lesser-used highways may end up with less maintenance under a free market. However, this will happen due to a natural equilibrium - there are more important ways to use resources than giving people in Podunk, USA a smoother ride. Those resources may be used to feed the homeless or provide healthcare to the disabled, or they may be used to advance technology, or they may be used to make life more convenient in large cities (where many more people will benefit). And that may cause some frustration to the people living in small towns. But a capital-intensive project with only marginal benefit (or none at all) isn't worthwhile. And stretching for perfection in an imperfect world is flushing money down the drain.

And a free market is adaptive. Even a perfect social progam is design to fit a particular social situation. It simply can't respond to changing conditions and is therefore ineffective at providing for the "commonwealth good" in the long run.

There are some genuine disadvantages to a free market, for instance an objectively inordinate amount of labor may be used to provide luxuries to the very wealthy, but there is no indication that any state would be able to minimize this tendency. Even if it could, I don't think that a primarily coercive social mechanic would be a worthwhile price to pay. (And the inefficiency of government spending might result in a lower standard of living across the board in any case)

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem, as I see it, with AC, is that it is not altruistic. Govenments, to keep in power, have to spend money altruistically (pork barelling) which is money spend sometimes, at least, for the commonwealth good not only for special and priviledged interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

I boggle. "Pork barrel" spending is by definition spending that benefits small special interest groups.

I do not think you mean "altruistic," which mean self-sacrificing, but rather generous, or perhaps charitable. An anarchocapitalist society would be generous or charitable to the extent that human beings are. It is demonstrable that human beings are generous and charitable. For example the wealthier a person becomes the more charitable he becomes.

Lastly, governments cannot be generous or charitable, except in the sense that they can generously buy support with funds confiscated from someone else. If you're being generous with someone else's money, it's not true generosity, is it?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some genuine disadvantages to a free market, for instance an objectively inordinate amount of labor may be used to provide luxuries to the very wealthy . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

How could such a thing possibly be objective? And how could it possibly matter? The workers are being paid the best possible wage (or else they would be working elsewhere) and that money is then spent in the economy in ever widening circles or saved and invested as capital. Why on earth would you want to interfere with that?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there a Cliff Notes version?

[/ QUOTE ]
The book I just recommended by David Friedman has a few chapters that are webbed. The chapter on what a legal system would look like without government involvement is worthwhile: Police, Courts, and Laws -- on the Market (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html).

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that I know that AC would not have any government, then I need to back up a bit.

I read that article, and admit that some of the concepts are very appealing. I do have some questions, but let me preface by addressing Boro's point in regards to people always asking questions, and he not needing to know all the answers -- he just has faith that it will work, because, after all, the free market produced a pencil. (The article he posted used the term "faith" quite a bit as well.) I say: phooey. Faith is the weakest form of knowledge. I am a skeptic at heart, and the same skepticism that prevents me from just having faith in a "god", also prevents me from having faith in AC. I need answers -- I can't just have faith.

Let's start with an island. 100 people find themselves on a deserted island with no hope of ever being rescued or escaping. So, their focus is now on building a society on that island.

What would the AC say is the best way for them to proceed? Property ownership -- who owns what? Rights -- what are they? (I will add more caveats later as needed.)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
How could such a thing possibly be objective? And how could it possibly matter? The workers are being paid the best possible wage (or else they would be working elsewhere) and that money is then spent in the economy in ever widening circles or saved and invested as capital. Why on earth would you want to interfere with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. What I am saying really is that from a purely utilitarian perspective, if we assume that wealth has a diminishing marginal utility, then the option that maximizes value is an equal distribution. This ignores the idea that wealth may be more valuable in some hands than others, even assuming a diminishing marginal utility.

While I do not believe there is any way to effect an "ideal" distribution of resources, I do think it is valid to consider the perspective of resource value. This runs into some "game theory" types of problems though. For example, if there are 10 people trapped in a cave, and they know they will be rescued in 30 days, and there is exactly enough food to keep 3 of them alive for those 30 days (or all 10 of them alive for 9 days) what is the correct course of action? Obviously it's best for 3 people to live and the other 7 to die. Unfortunately this decision is arbitrary (assuming no person "deserves" to live more than any other) and things will turn ugly unless 7 of those people are extremely altruistic.

Also no theoretical consideration can apply to every scenario. The workers are being paid the best possible wages, but this is meaningless if they don't make enough money to survive. With finite resources it is possible for a situation to arise in which someone has to "lose," but nobody wants to be the "loser." I think when resources become sufficiently scarce, coercion becomes necessary (that is, some people are willing to do whatever it takes to get their hands on what they need). So an essential premise for the removal of coercive mechanisms is that there are enough resources to cover everyone's needs (defined as what a person must possess in order to prevent his resorting to desperate coercive means).

Because of this, in a situation with scarce resources, putting those resources to use in the creation of essentially unnecessary products will result in a greater total level of coercion (as fewer people are able to meet their needs). Thus, in a situation of scarce resources it is destructive for a wealthy person to use those resources as luxuries (you don't want to piss in the drinking water during a drought). In a situation of abundant resources I don't think this applies. Obviously the inefficient use of resources by government creates this problem at least as much as the "selfish" use of resources by the wealthy, and I think a free market is more likely to result in an abundance of resources and is therefore the best solution outside of "hopeless" scenarios.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I do have some questions, but let me preface by addressing Boro's point in regards to people always asking questions, and he not needing to know all the answers -- he just has faith that it will work, because, after all, the free market produced a pencil. (The article he posted used the term "faith" quite a bit as well.) I say: phooey. Faith is the weakest form of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
Boro's point is simply that arguments from personal incredulity don't carry much weight.

When a creationist says that he can't fathom how evolution could produce such-and-such, Dawkins responds that "evolution is much cleverer than you are."

Similarly, when someone says that he can't fathom how a free market could produce roads or monetary currency or whatever, it seems a valid response that the market is much cleverer than we are as well.

One may well come up with legitimate reasons why evolution or a free market cannot produce such-and-such, but raw arguments from personal incredulity will not do.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
What would the AC say is the best way for them to proceed? Property ownership -- who owns what? Rights -- what are they? (I will add more caveats later as needed.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there are any. There is no need to define in detail who owns what and who is allowed to do what. That would be legislation. As conflicts arise, they are dealt with in an organic way. I think on such a small scale you wouldn't have anything resembling an "economy" per se, because with only 100 people in a small area things like money and trade are largely unnecessary. Trade, where it existed, would probably be represented as barter (or "exchanges of favors").

Put it this way. Let's say as we arrive on the island, I go sit down under a tree. That night, I sleep under the tree. The next day I go foraging and then return to sleep under the tree again. And for another week I spend most of my time under the tree. Then at the end of the week a bully comes and tells me to move. I say "I've been sleeping under this tree since we got here." He says "if you don't move I'll hit your head with this coconut until you do." Now what happens? Well, a lot of things could happen. Freedom is part of anarchism. I could fight him to the death, perhaps. Or I could pretend to let him have the tree and then play some trick on him. See, I have already entered the mind set of "protecting my property," even though nobody ever told me that I "own" the tree. Alternatively, I could let someone else sleep under the tree with me in exchange for protection against the bully. Or maybe a group of islanders will have banded together to prevent the bully from pushing people around, and they will come to my assistance.

The precise specifics aren't really what matter, per se. In fact, the whole point is that there are no specific definitions and iron laws. What evolves, evolves. It may be Gilligan's Island, or it may be Swiss Family Robinson. Who knows? It depends on the island and the people and maybe even the weather. The only sure thing is, it's better than the alternative (Lord of the Flies).

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's start with an island. 100 people find themselves on a deserted island with no hope of ever being rescued or escaping. So, their focus is now on building a society on that island.

What would the AC say is the best way for them to proceed? Property ownership -- who owns what? Rights -- what are they? (I will add more caveats later as needed.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Locke's theory of property acquisition would probably suffice. A thing becomes your property when you mix your labor with it. A coconut tree isn't your property, but the crops you planted and watered are.

And other rights are pretty standard. You have the right not to be beaten or raped, etc.

In a larger society, rights would be determined by the market. I would hire my security company to protect my right not to be beaten, and not to have my stuff stolen. Somebody else might hire his security company to steal my stuff. Market forces will determine that security companies in the business contracting to steal other people's stuff will go out of business quickly because its costs will be much higher than those of its competitors. It will constantly be getting into fights with all the other security companies, and fights are expensive. So the right not to have one's stuff stolen will prevail over the right to steal. Other rights would be determined the same way.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do have some questions, but let me preface by addressing Boro's point in regards to people always asking questions, and he not needing to know all the answers -- he just has faith that it will work, because, after all, the free market produced a pencil. (The article he posted used the term "faith" quite a bit as well.) I say: phooey. Faith is the weakest form of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
Boro's point is simply that arguments from personal incredulity don't carry much weight.

When a creationist says that he can't fathom how evolution could produce such-and-such, Dawkins responds that "evolution is much cleverer than you are."

Similarly, when someone says that he can't fathom how a free market could produce roads or monetary currency or whatever, it seems a valid response that the market is much cleverer than we are as well.

One may well come up with legitimate reasons why evolution or a free market cannot produce such-and-such, but raw arguments from personal incredulity will not do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But on the flip side, a credulous argument (just have faith) does no better.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do have some questions, but let me preface by addressing Boro's point in regards to people always asking questions, and he not needing to know all the answers -- he just has faith that it will work, because, after all, the free market produced a pencil. (The article he posted used the term "faith" quite a bit as well.) I say: phooey. Faith is the weakest form of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
Boro's point is simply that arguments from personal incredulity don't carry much weight.

When a creationist says that he can't fathom how evolution could produce such-and-such, Dawkins responds that "evolution is much cleverer than you are."

Similarly, when someone says that he can't fathom how a free market could produce roads or monetary currency or whatever, it seems a valid response that the market is much cleverer than we are as well.

One may well come up with legitimate reasons why evolution or a free market cannot produce such-and-such, but raw arguments from personal incredulity will not do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But on the flip side, a credulous argument (just have faith) does no better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not merely faith, the essay shows that when there is a demand for something, the market provides it. Even when something is banned by governments, black markets provide it. States derive their 'legitimate monopoly' in certain areas because they claim that they can either provide something which would be 'impossible' for the market, or provide something more efficiently than the market (which all evidence suggests otherwise).

Our conjecture is this: if the market can (and has proven to) provide the millions of goods and services (more efficiently, at that) which are already in existence, then why is it necessary for the state to coercively monopolize (and ban market producers from providing) a select few goods and services?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Two final points:

1) Working at a state university doesn't really qualify one as a government employee, though this idiotic insistence on technicalities is for some reason typical of people like you. And many economists go to private universities, though there is no difference in the training they receive.

2) Almost no professional economists take these Austrian economists seriously, and for good reason. Though I have read some of their work and am generally unimpressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's look at this problem economically (the rational incentives).

Keynesian and Marshallian (neo-classical) economics have been the dominant paradigms for the past century. The former advocates big government, which, of course, is more likely to espoused by those with political power (like FDR), thus providing further incentive for those in academia to pursue the discipline (they gain status if they are recognized by politicians). When Keynesianism was effectively refuted (to the point were all advocates of the school looked like fools), most people moved back to Marshallian economics, simply because it is more similar to Keynesianism than the alternatives.

Furthermore, Marshallian economics involves calculus, multipliers, econometrics etc... The reason why academics promote these aspects of economics is simply to enhance image as intellectuals (only we can do it, just leave it to us). Economics is, by nature, a social science, meaning that absolutely none of these principles do anything to explain the actions of individuals. That's alright though, at least they look smart when they do it. Math is a logical device which is effective in disciplines such as physics because the actions of inanimate objects are repeatable. This, however, is not the case with human action. Verbal logic is far superior to mathematical logic in the field of economics, because it can more accurately explain the actions of individuals (the fundamental basis of all economics, praxis). (By the way, Rothbard, Hayek and a few other notable Austrians were mathematicians by trade [and better ones than Lord Keynes himself].)

Finally, how likely are people to actually realize that they were wrong, and give up on their life's work. That is the primary reason why people like yourself are so "unimpressed" by the work of Austrians.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do have some questions, but let me preface by addressing Boro's point in regards to people always asking questions, and he not needing to know all the answers -- he just has faith that it will work, because, after all, the free market produced a pencil. (The article he posted used the term "faith" quite a bit as well.) I say: phooey. Faith is the weakest form of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
Boro's point is simply that arguments from personal incredulity don't carry much weight.

When a creationist says that he can't fathom how evolution could produce such-and-such, Dawkins responds that "evolution is much cleverer than you are."

Similarly, when someone says that he can't fathom how a free market could produce roads or monetary currency or whatever, it seems a valid response that the market is much cleverer than we are as well.

One may well come up with legitimate reasons why evolution or a free market cannot produce such-and-such, but raw arguments from personal incredulity will not do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But on the flip side, a credulous argument (just have faith) does no better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not merely faith, the essay shows that when there is a demand for something, the market provides it. Even when something is banned by governments, black markets provide it. States derive their 'legitimate monopoly' in certain areas because they claim that they can either provide something which would be 'impossible' for the market, or provide something more efficiently than the market (which all evidence suggests otherwise).

Our conjecture is this: if the market can (and has proven to) provide the millions of goods and services (more efficiently, at that) which are already in existence, then why is it necessary for the state to coercively monopolize (and ban market producers from providing) a select few goods and services?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article &amp; Boro are implying much more than that, though, right? On the economic side, they are saying that a free market will provide better goods &amp; services more efficiently. This has not been shown, and even if that is the case in some instances, it may not be in all. The article concludes by discussing our mail system. I agree that the mail system should be "open" to allow private parties to compete. However, it is my understanding that our USPS is more efficient than most (if not all) private mail systems in other countries.

But, we digress. My primary curiosity is with the "anarcho" part of "anarchocapitalism". My understanding is that ACs would suggest that there be no centralized government -- for anything: law making &amp; enforcing, military, intrastate infrastructure (highways, etc.), ecological controls, etc. #1 would be law making &amp; enforcing. I will continue my "island questioning" later, as this, I think, might expose the fundamental problem I think I might have with AC.

[The Don]

When something is centrally planned, it is impossible (as the article suggests) for it to be provided more efficiently than by the market. The reason for this is because it is impossible for a human mind to consider all of the factors of production (in the way the invisible hand does), be sensitive to consumer demand, and supply goods and services appropriately to meet the demand in the way the market is able to. Free market advocates believe that no good (or service) falls outside of this category, therefore anything which would never be provided without government (the space program and nuclear weapons) is useless, and services like protection (the government monopoly, in this case, is police and military) could be more efficiently provided by the market. Central planning merely results in waste and abuse of power.

Regarding law, it is wrong to conflate law and government. Law is merely a set of standards which people agree upon. This is possible without government codifying it and monopolizing its enforcement. For instance, it is likely that everyone in society would oppose non-retaliatory violence (since this is consistent with human nature). Therefore "society" would likely not tolerate this and seek to punish offenders (there would be a demand to stop these people, therefore the market would supply it).

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd still like to see the comparison of your CV and Rothbard's. Surely you've produced some work that can rival, for example Man, Economy, and State (http://www.mises.org/store/Man-Economy-and-State-with-Power-and-Market-The-Scholars-Edition-P177C18.aspx), since you can so easily dismiss his ideas.

Have you even read the stuff you're dismissing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Boro, I consider you a pal of mine on these boards, and I don't ever want to piss you off purposely, so don't take this the wrong way. But this "this dude's CV dick is bigger than yours" is preposterous. How many people disagree with your Austrian economists that have a big, throbbing, black CV dick that makes the others look like a flaccid 8 year old white kid's ding dong? By these standards alone, using your criteria as to who and what is to be taken seriously, we can disregard AC offhand.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
oro, I consider you a pal of mine on these boards, and I don't ever want to piss you off purposely, so don't take this the wrong way. But this "this dude's CV dick is bigger than yours" is preposterous. How many people disagree with your Austrian economists that have a big, throbbing, black CV dick that makes the others look like a flaccid 8 year old white kid's ding dong? By these standards alone, using your criteria as to who and what is to be taken seriously, we can disregard AC offhand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to Mises, they're all flacid 8 year olds. He was inarguably the greatest economist of the 20th century.

All I wanted to know really is how he can so casually dismiss some of the greatest economists of the century, a characterization not disputed by any knowledgable economist, regardless of what school of economic thought they subscribe to. If he thinks he can dismiss Mises and Rothbard, I'd like to see him at least claim to have even read any of their works. I mean, how am I supposed to take him seriously if he hasn't even read what he's dismissing?

All his participation in this thread constitutes is, "Hey, I haven't read anything by these guys, but they're wrong, and you shouldn't bother even considering it. No, I'm not going to present any arguments, because I'm too busy, but trust me. There's nothing to see here. Move along, move along."

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most professional economists are either paid by governments, or are trained by economists paid by government. Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so wrong it's ridiculous. Most economoists will never work for a government institution of any sort at any point during their career. Nor do most get the majority of their training from people who have worked for a government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dealt with elsewhere, this is false. Most economists are trained in state-funded institutions. Contrary to what you assert, being on the government payroll and being paid with taxpayer money most certainly makes you a government employee. Recall that I was a professor at a public university. Believe me, I know who signed the checks. That you claim otherwise is perhaps indicative of your skills an an economist.

[ QUOTE ]
And besides that, training in economics isn't ideological in nature, it's learning how to study these issues. It's neither a coincidence nor a conspiracy that most economists come to a conclusion different than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's neither a coincidence nor a conspiracy. Crossposted from the Blind Watchmaker thread:

[ QUOTE ]
I've also been thinking about the state of public education, and publicly funded higher education, particularly in regards to economics, in terms of Dawkins theories about genes adapting to survive in the environment of the gene pool. Genes adapt to play well together. How would a bad government fair in a society with an excellent education system? An education system that taught logic, rationality, economics, etc. and taught them well? Similarly, how would publicly funded education tend to fare if that education made it obvious to the recipients that the governments policies were ridiculous? There is no Vast Left Wing Liberal Conspiracy required to produce a shoddy education system that is shoddy in particular ways that protect the fallacies upon which government policies are based. Socialized education sucks because of central planning, but I do not believe the central planners plan for it to suck. There are selection pressures that drive a bad government and a poor education system (that enables it) to develop in synchrony.
<font color="white"> . </font>
The same is true of mainstream modern economics, which has been essentially discredited for decades (since the 1930s). But government relies on bad economics to justify it's interventionist policies, and government funds the institutions that educate most economists.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Note that other fields of science, like physics, do not suffer from the same problems. The government does not rely on bad physics to justify it's policies.
<font color="white"> . </font>
If anyone doubts this effect is real, one has only to look at the home of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, at Auburn. My good friend and personal economic consultant Dr. Paul Cwik recieved his Ph.D. in economics from Auburn, a state funded institution. As you might imagine from the association with the Mises Institute, their economics program is extremely pro-free market. Recently a 1% budget cut was handed down to the university. How was this 1% doled out across the myriad programs provided by the university? Well 1% is just about exactly the operating budget of the Ph.D. economics program, so it was cut, in its entirety. You can no longer get a Ph.D. from arguably one of the most free market friendly economics programs in the nation. My friend received the LAST Ph.D. in economics from Auburn. Giant conspiracy (as MathEconomist accused me of implying)? No. But anyone who denies that such selection pressures exist and have effects is fooling themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I have no interest in debating you; I have better uses for my time. I just think people here who might be easily seduced by this stuff ought to know that much of it isn't taken very seriously by most serious scholars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said:

[ QUOTE ]
All his participation in this thread constitutes is, "Hey, I haven't read anything by these guys, but they're wrong, and you shouldn't bother even considering it. No, I'm not going to present any arguments, because I'm too busy, but trust me. There's nothing to see here. Move along, move along."

[/ QUOTE ]

[MathEconomist]

Look man, I'm sorry you picked up on the outdated work of a few hacks because they happen to agree with your ideology and have taken it for fact, but no self respecting economist today would rank Mises anywhere near the top of the past century of economists. Outside of a few crappy institutions like Auburn, the work of the Austrians isn't taken seriously. The field advanced and these people didn't. If you weren't blinded by the need for some justification for your ideology you'd realize that. Claims like mainstream economics (whatever that means) was refuted since 1930 or Keynesians were suddenly discredited shows a complete willful ignorance of economics and it's history. You don't like the field because it moved from the ideological advocacy of your heroes into the realm of objective analysis.

Personally, I don't like the government and I do like free markets. And the original point of your post is correct. Not being able to imagine how something could happen is evidence of nothing other than the lack of imagination or the speaker. But it's ridiculous to go around acting like free markets sprinkle magic life improving pixie dust everywhere and can do no wrong and solve every problem. And because people like you so often cite "economics" as justifying your anarchism, I thought people ought to know that mainstream economics doesn't support these views. I'm not going to post my CV or get into some idiotic pissing contest about how my professional work stacks up with anyone elses. It's pointless, doesn't prove anything, and I don't really want to announce my real identity on the internet. I'm happy enough with my professional work and also with that of the vast majority of economists who think the Austrians are a joke. But it is clear to me that you have very little knowledge of what economics actually is or how it works, and I suggest that if you're going to continue discussing this stuff you actually take the time to learn something about the field.

[Borodog]

In other words, you're going to wave your hands about, make assertions, and present no argument.

The monolithic picture you present of economics, with the vast majority united in the opinion that the Austrian school is a joke is itself a joke. There are many schools of economic thought, some smaller, some larger than the Austrian school. No serious economist believes that what the Austrian school teaches, that economic truths can be logically deduced from certain axioms of human action, is wrong. Would YOU like to claim that? What they disagree with is the Austrian belief that treating economics like physics, with its isolatable variables and repeatable experiments, is futile, and hence certain analytical techniques are pointless.

A few decades back most of the major schools of economic thought in the world were thoroughly Keynesian. Among those that were not was the Chicago school (I presume you don't dismiss Milton Friedman as a hack), which was quite small. Now they are quite large. Does that make them right now? Were they wrong back then? Do you think truth is decided by majority vote?

"...it's ridiculous to go around acting like free markets sprinkle magic life improving pixie dust everywhere and can do no wrong and solve every problem."

And you think governments and central planning can? Where do they keep their stockpiles of magic pixie dust? I suppose government does less wrong than free markets? I suppose government has solved more problems than free markets have?

Get real.

[Borodog]

Praxeology: The Austrian Method (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2005/mu05-Hoppe.mp3)

And:

Austrian vs. Neoclassical Analytics (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2005/mu05-Murphy.mp3)

[maurile]

By the way, if you are interested in anarcho-capitalism and enjoy science fiction, you will definitely want to check out Vernor Vinge's short story, "The Ungoverned." It was published in the Across Realtime Trilogy which is unfortunately out of print. (Both novels between which "The Ungoverned" was sandwiched were fantastic.) But it is now available in The Collected Stories of Vernor Vinge (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312875843/).

It's a short story set in the central part of what had been the United States. There is no government in this territory, and society operates like what Friedmen sketches out in The Machinery of Freedom. Independent security companies provide police services. The question, though, is what will happen when the territory is invaded by neighboring countries. Since there is no government, there is no national defense. Can an attack be staved off?

It's a pretty cool story.

[Borodog]

I'll check it out (I love Vernor Vinge, especially Marooned in Realtime; I'm also a believer in the singularity concept), but this:

[ QUOTE ]
Since there is no government, there is no national defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

is wrong (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0945466374/002-3487830-2076030?n=283155).

[MathEconomist]

[ QUOTE ]
that economic truths can be logically deduced from certain axioms of human action

[/ QUOTE ]

This IS wrong. This is simply a form of intellectual masturbation. Economic truths don't follow from axioms, they follow from empirical regularities. Good economists observe these regularities, then model the likely reasons for them. The mathematical modeling helps understand and explain the important factors that cause the regularities and explains how changes in them should change the outcomes observed.

Simply starting out with axioms and deducing things is terrible economics and terrible reasoning. Deductive logic only establishes things which are already contained in the premises and axioms. It's no surprise then that people in the Austrian school always get the answer they expected (namely, markets are perfect government always bad), since they built the damn answer into their reasoning to begin with.

And no, economics isn't some monolithic field and there are many schools of thought about almost every question. Yet almost every school of thought would agree that the Austrians are a joke. Why else would they all be stuck at third rate institutions like Auburn and Clemson?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll check it out (I love Vernor Vinge, especially Marooned in Realtime; I'm also a believer in the singularity concept), but this:

[ QUOTE ]
Since there is no government, there is no national defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

is wrong (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0945466374/002-3487830-2076030?n=283155).

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it's not really wrong. Since there is no government, there is no nation-state, and thus there is no national anything. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

There is a defense in Vinge's novella. I just wouldn't call it a national defense. But I guess that's just semantics.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that economic truths can be logically deduced from certain axioms of human action

[/ QUOTE ]

This IS wrong. This is simply a form of intellectual masturbation. Economic truths don't follow from axioms, they follow from empirical regularities. Good economists observe these regularities, then model the likely reasons for them. The mathematical modeling helps understand and explain the important factors that cause the regularities and explains how changes in them should change the outcomes observed.

Simply starting out with axioms and deducing things is terrible economics and terrible reasoning. Deductive logic only establishes things which are already contained in the premises and axioms. It's no surprise then that people in the Austrian school always get the answer they expected (namely, markets are perfect government always bad), since they built the damn answer into their reasoning to begin with.

And no, economics isn't some monolithic field and there are many schools of thought about almost every question. Yet almost every school of thought would agree that the Austrians are a joke. Why else would they all be stuck at third rate institutions like Auburn and Clemson?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're hillarious. Now I know you have no idea what you're talking about. You can't seriously tell me you think the Law of Marginal Utility, for example, is empirical and needs to be constantly tested? Here, I'll do it for you:

A homogeneous good is a good where any unit of the good is just as satisfactory as any other unit for an actor; they all have equal serviceability.

We can see transparently the the first unit of a homogeneous good will always be utilized by an actor to satisfy his most highly ranking goal of all goals that the unit could satisfy.

The second unit of the good will be always used to satisfy the second most highly ranking goal that can be satisfied by the good. The third unit, the third highest goal, and so on.

We need not agree with him on his choice of which goal is most important; we may think him foolish, we may have chosen differently, but it is self-evident that he will employ the first unit of the good to satisfy the goal he ranks most highly. Furthermore, because his knowledge may change tomorrow, he may make different choices tomorrow, or the next day, or the next. Hence no predictions about what his choices will be may be made, except in the speculative sense of an entrepeneur or a gambler. But we can certainly say, that even though we cannot predict what choices he will make, that he will apply each unit of the good to the next highest ranking goal that can be satisfied by that good. I can also say this is obviously true for everyone. No prediction of actual choices is possible, but each person will use each unit of the good to satisfy the next most highly ranking of their goals.

The marginal utility is defined as the utility of the last available unit of a homogeneous good (incidentally, since all units of the good are equally satisfactory, the utility of all units is equal to the marginal utility, which we may as well think of as the value). As the supply of the good increases we may utilize each unit for successively lower ranking goals. As the supply of the good decreases we forego lower ranked goals.

Hence we have arrived at the Law of Marginal Utility: As the supply of a homogeneous good increases the marginal utility decreases and vice versa, as the supply of a homogeneous good decreases the marginal utility increases.

A) I do not need to keep testing this law in an attempt to falsify it. It is as correct as 2+2=4.

B) It has no predictive power, i.e. I can never predict in more than a speculative way what any actor will choose to do with his first unit of a good (I can of course, discuss the motivations of actors after they have made choices, i.e. I can engage in history).

This is NOT how an empirical science, like physics, works. There is no "Marginal Utility Hypothesis" that must be tested, found to be not falsified, and perpetually retested. Empirical hypotheses and predictions are two sides of the same coin; they boil down to IF-THEN statements. The hypothesis requires the prediction. Testing the prediction can never prove the hypothesis, it can only falsify it, and if we falsify it, it does not in general mean that the hypothesis is entirely false; there may be compounding factors. The Law of Marginal Utility can never make a predictions about what any actor will choose, and it doesn't need to be tested because it is logically true. Always.

If economic propositions were hypotheses, we would have to test them all because each hypothesis would be just as good as the next one. Ask an Austrian economist what will happen to employment if you raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour and he will tell you employment will fall, because you have raised the marginal cost of labor, and therefore the lower ranking goals for which units of labor (employees) would be utilized must be foregone. Ask "MathEconomist" the same question and he must develop a model, make ridiculous assumptions, like say there is only one employer in the economy and one employee, and they all have perfect knowledge, etc. And if he shows that employment falls, that doesn't prove anything. It may be that under a different model with confounding factors include, raising the minimum wage to $100 might make employment rise. Better keep testing . . .

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet almost every school of thought would agree that the Austrians are a joke. Why else would they all be stuck at third rate institutions like Auburn and Clemson?

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained it here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4470280)


Anyway, you seem to be asserting that the basis of economics is not individual choice (or at least assuming that these choices are repeatable -- which is the only way math could possibly be viable in explaining and interpreting). At any given point in time, any infinite number of decisions can be made given any infinite number of circumstances -- aggregating these decisions in mathematical modeling explains little to none (basically, there is no such thing as macroeconomics, unless it is expanded logically from the principles of microeconomics). Keynes and Samuelson tried this, and practical application of their ideas have proven their conjectures (in the form of policy) to be nothing but unnecessary and destructive meddling.

[jthegreat]

Until one of you can convince me that, if the US were an AC society, I wouldn't be jailed for being an atheist by nutcase Christians with the money and desire to pay for it, you haven't a leg to stand on. I fully agree that the free market provides nearly everything more efficiently than government control can, but there are some things, like a justice and defense system, that don't work the same way. An AC justice system would totally screw the poor and minorities in general. Jerry Falwell could pay to have be put in a prison and I'd have absolutely no recourse.

[Borodog]

Your last response is so ridiculous it requires point by point debunking.

[ QUOTE ]
This IS wrong. This is simply a form of intellectual masturbation. Economic truths don't follow from axioms, they follow from empirical regularities.

Good economists observe these regularities, then model the likely reasons for them. The mathematical modeling helps understand and explain the important factors that cause the regularities and explains how changes in them should change the outcomes observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous. On the face of it. "Economic truths arise from empirical regularities?" You must be kidding right? Because I choose waffles every morning rather than pancakes it is an Economic Truth that I will always choose waffles over pancakes? Jesus H. Christ.

[ QUOTE ]
Simply starting out with axioms and deducing things is terrible economics and terrible reasoning. Deductive logic only establishes things which are already contained in the premises and axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]

You DO you realize that by your reasoning there's no reason to do mathemtics? After all, everything you deduce mathematically only establishes things that were already contained in the premises and axioms. I'm sure the world's mathematicians will be relieved to know that you can save them all the toil because everything they discover is "already contained in the axioms."

[ QUOTE ]
It's no surprise then that people in the Austrian school always get the answer they expected (namely, markets are perfect government always bad), since they built the damn answer into their reasoning to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, would you care to actually show this, brainiac? Because I'm certain you can find the nefarious, free-market bias that goes into things like "Humans act," and "People prefer more of a good than less," and "People prefer a good sooner than later." You have got to be the most ridiculous example of an economist I've ever run into. You actually get paid for this brand of thought process? Is there any doubt that the "main stream" of economics has problems if you are representative of it?

[ QUOTE ]
And no, economics isn't some monolithic field and there are many schools of thought about almost every question. Yet almost every school of thought would agree that the Austrians are a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the joke. Do you want me to start posting links from the likes of Milton Freidman critiquing the Austrian School? In my field of physics, no one publishes papers critiquing the ideas of people they think are "jokes." They might disagree, but they certainly don't dismiss the Austrians as a "joke," and they certainly have much higher respects for giants of the field like Mises and Rothbard and their works than they would have for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Why else would they all be stuck at third rate institutions like Auburn and Clemson?

[/ QUOTE ]

And where pray tell is YOUR degree from? University of Phoenix Online?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Until one of you can convince me that, if the US were an AC society, I wouldn't be jailed for being an atheist by nutcase Christians with the money and desire to pay for it, you haven't a leg to stand on. I fully agree that the free market provides nearly everything more efficiently than government control can, but there are some things, like a justice and defense system, that don't work the same way. An AC justice system would totally screw the poor and minorities in general. Jerry Falwell could pay to have be put in a prison and I'd have absolutely no recourse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your insurance company would not allow it.

Done.

[MathEconomist]

You have no idea what you are talking about. You propose a derivation about marginal utility without having any idea of the ideas that it presupposes or its implications. Nor whether it has any applicability to analysis of actual behavior. People don't always behave like amateur economists with no knowledge of the field have told them they logically should. Hell, they don't even behave in the ways well trained knowledgable professional economists tell them they rationally should. You use ideas like "utility" with no knowledge whatsoever about what kind of can of worms you're opening up, nor how your conclusions will apply (or fail to apply) in the real world.

No, I don't need a sophisticated model to tell you what happens if we raise the minimum wage to $100/hr. But what about if we raise it by $.05/hr? What if we raised taxes on businesses to pay a transfer payment to minimum wage workers of .05/hr? What about any of the other changes, instituted by the government or random chance? How will those things impact employment? In the real world, these questions end up being more complex than idiotic axiomatic derivations suggest they would be because people don't just behave according to the axioms you've set for them.

Where did you get your training in economics to presuppose that you know more than nobel prize winners? Or anyone else who actually understands the field? You just like to talk out of your ass and pretend that you understand a field you know nothing about in order to justify your ideological prejudices.

Don-You seem to just be regurgitating something you read somewhere. If choices aren't at all reasonably consistent, then all economic analysis by any school of thought is pointless. We can't just throw up our hands because people don't ALWAYS do the same things. And if there is no regularity to their behavior, then there isn't anything to analyze. It doesn't take much regularity before mathematical modeling becomes the most useful way to deal with these issues. The best predictive macroeconomic models are all developed using sophisticated modeling techniques, not by the Austrians. But keep thinking it's all part of some vast conspiracty by the state to keep your dangerous ideas down. You guys are both intellectual jokes.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]


Your insurance company would not allow it.

Done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey just like the mafia.

[MathEconomist]

[ QUOTE ]
Because I choose waffles every morning rather than pancakes it is an Economic Truth that I will always choose waffles over pancakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

That you would interpret things this way just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just trying to justify your idiocy. There is no such thing as "the" economic truth. There are regularities in human behavior that are reasonably consistent. The goal of economics is to model these regularities in such a way that when situations change in new ways, the model still gives the correct predictions. In other words, we want the simplest possible robust theory, preferably one that actually explains what is happening and gives an intuition why, but certainly one that gives the correct predictions consistently in a wide variety of unexpected circumstances. This goes whether you are doing a micro model of insurance contracts or a complex macro model of the US economy.

You obviously have a closed mind and no desire to learn. Personally, if I had no real knowledge of economics, I'd be happy to hear the opinions of a professional economist. I might perhaps start reading mainstream economics when I was told that people in the field don't take the stuff I've been reading seriously. Certainly, if I were interested in learning chemistry or biology, I'd value the opinions of chemists and biologists over my biased undereducated readings in those fields. I wouldn't, for example, assume evolution is false because there is a tiny minority of biologists saying that it is and having arguments that seem convincing to me since the entire mainstream of the field assures me that evolutionary theory is, in some form, correct. But you are just seeking justification for your ideology. So have fun in your echo chamber only seriously listening to those that agree with you.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what you are talking about. You propose a derivation about marginal utility without having any idea of the ideas that it presupposes or its implications. Nor whether it has any applicability to analysis of actual behavior. People don't always behave like amateur economists with no knowledge of the field have told them they logically should. Hell, they don't even behave in the ways well trained knowledgable professional economists tell them they rationally should. You use ideas like "utility" with no knowledge whatsoever about what kind of can of worms you're opening up, nor how your conclusions will apply (or fail to apply) in the real world.

No, I don't need a sophisticated model to tell you what happens if we raise the minimum wage to $100/hr. But what about if we raise it by $.05/hr? What if we raised taxes on businesses to pay a transfer payment to minimum wage workers of .05/hr? What about any of the other changes, instituted by the government or random chance? How will those things impact employment? In the real world, these questions end up being more complex than idiotic axiomatic derivations suggest they would be because people don't just behave according to the axioms you've set for them.

Where did you get your training in economics to presuppose that you know more than nobel prize winners? Or anyone else who actually understands the field? You just like to talk out of your ass and pretend that you understand a field you know nothing about in order to justify your ideological prejudices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you're being ridiculous. You want to talk Nobel prize winners? You mean like Hayek? Raise the minimum wage by $0.05, employment will go down. Raise taxes on buisnesses to pay for it, employment will go down. What, there's some magic hidden economic force that cannot be derived but whose effects can only be observed empirically that makes employers hire more people when the cost of labor goes up? Why don't you explain why it's so obvious that employment goes down when you raise the minimum wage by $100, hmm? Why don't you need a model? Why don't you need to empirically test it? Isn't that how "Economic Truths" are discovered?

Does it matter where I got my training if you can't even address my arguments without handwaving, assertions, and ad hominem? What species of fallacy is that again? Besides, how can you ask me where I got my training when you won't answer where you got yours?

I reiterate: You're the worst economist I've ever encountered.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because I choose waffles every morning rather than pancakes it is an Economic Truth that I will always choose waffles over pancakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

That you would interpret things this way just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just trying to justify your idiocy. There is no such thing as "the" economic truth. There are regularities in human behavior that are reasonably consistent. The goal of economics is to model these regularities in such a way that when situations change in new ways, the model still gives the correct predictions. In other words, we want the simplest possible robust theory, preferably one that actually explains what is happening and gives an intuition why, but certainly one that gives the correct predictions consistently in a wide variety of unexpected circumstances. This goes whether you are doing a micro model of insurance contracts or a complex macro model of the US economy.

You obviously have a closed mind and no desire to learn. Personally, if I had no real knowledge of economics, I'd be happy to hear the opinions of a professional economist. I might perhaps start reading mainstream economics when I was told that people in the field don't take the stuff I've been reading seriously. Certainly, if I were interested in learning chemistry or biology, I'd value the opinions of chemists and biologists over my biased undereducated readings in those fields. I wouldn't, for example, assume evolution is false because there is a tiny minority of biologists saying that it is and having arguments that seem convincing to me since the entire mainstream of the field assures me that evolutionary theory is, in some form, correct. But you are just seeking justification for your ideology. So have fun in your echo chamber only seriously listening to those that agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

More of the same handwaving nonresponse, except now you're a hypocrite. Closed mind and no desire to learn? You haven't even read the work you dismiss.

What makes you think I haven't discussed economics with mainstream economists or read mainstream economists? Does Milton count? Is he good enough for you? Did it ever occur to you that I was interested in economics before I discovered Austrian economics, and that perhaps I adhere to the Austrian school because it actually makes sense where empirical methods do not? I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics. I've taught physics and mathematics. I know what an empirical science looks like, and I know what an axiomatic deductive science looks like. Social sciences like economics are NOT empirical, and no matter how far down your nose you look, they never will be.

[MathEconomist]

Employment will go down if we raise the minimum wage by .05? Can you prove this? What if labor demand is invariant over the area around the current minimum wage? What if employers don't care enough about changes of this size to reoptimize? It is quite likely that a .05 change in the minimum wage would have no impact on employment for exactly these reasons. If it did, it would be by a small amount. And how would you go about understanding if this new situation is better or worse than the current one? You don't want to consider complexities because they contradict your ideology or you aren't smart enough to understand them. Either way, you don't know what you're talking about.

As for my training, somewhere good. Beyond that, none of your business. Definitely somewhere much much better than Auburn or Clemson. I really don't care if an ignorant fool doesn't think I'm a good economist. The people who actually count disagree. Now I'm almost done with my evening poker session and entirely done with you. I suggest though, for your own benefit, that you actually learn something about economics before babbling about how free markets will make everything perfect. Market imperfections of all sorts are well known and well documented. Perhaps if you knew anything about this you'd know that.

[Borodog]

Wow. In this entire conversation you have never done anything but assert and insult. Not one single logical argument. Bravo!

Ah, but I forget. Who needs logic? You can't show anything except what was already contained in the axioms . . .

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what you are talking about. You propose a derivation about marginal utility without having any idea of the ideas that it presupposes or its implications. Nor whether it has any applicability to analysis of actual behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love economic smack-talk.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what you are talking about. You propose a derivation about marginal utility without having any idea of the ideas that it presupposes or its implications. Nor whether it has any applicability to analysis of actual behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love economic smack-talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

[MathEconomist]

To anyone who isn't quite sure why the Austrian school is ridiculed:

[ QUOTE ]
I adhere to the Austrian school because it actually makes sense where empirical methods do not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, God forbid we actually look at the real world when trying to understand things about it. It's so much easier to write down a list of axioms, derive conclusions from them, and then wonder why people don't behave the way "logic" dictates that they should. Much easier to be constantly surprised that people don't behave the way we expect them to than to have a science that actually studies the way people behave and makes inferences based on that.

Seriously, Austrians and ideologues want economics to simply draw conclusions based on their assumptions about the world and then pretend it's a science. They spurn the real world and the process of actually studying it and creating a science based upon reality rather than their sacred beliefs. Unfortunately for them reality fails to confirm their beliefs, so they try to invent flimsy justifications for not studying it. Real economists accept that our theories are often wrong, try to find out how, and strive to improve them and better understand economic behavior. The study of economics is the study of how little we actually know. But the hubris and ideological biases of the Austrians get in the way of their understanding this.

I hope those that are actually interested in these issues will understand this. And that those who are interested in a cheap cure for 5 am insomnia will come to ongame and play 50 buyin NL. Easy money, easy entertainment.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Your insurance company would not allow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What insurance company? I live in a very conservative part of the South. There aren't enough atheists around here to justify the insurance service being offered. Not to mention the fact that I'd never be able to afford it since the insurance company would be seriously outgunned by the Christian army.

As you yourself have admitted earlier, you *don't* have an explanation for how it will work. You have the basic premise that free markets provide services more efficiently than a government can. I don't even argue with that. My point is that sometimes the most "efficient" system isn't the best *because* of the human rights violations that will inevitably occur within it. In an AC society, the poor and minorities get screwed. Within a few years, every AC society would experience war of some kind, be it through warlords, or based on religion or race.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I will continue my "island questioning" later, as this, I think, might expose the fundamental problem I think I might have with AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarchocapitalistic Island - Situation 1

100 people are stranded on a deserted island (assumption: they cannot escape, and they will not be rescued). They want to build a society based on anarchocapitalistic ideas.

One of the islanders, Bob, searches the island, and finds a fresh-water well. It is the only source of fresh water on the island. He clears out a path to the well, removes the weeds &amp; debris around it, builds a pully system in order to get the water out, and a protective shack around it to keep the critters (and thieves) out. He now has a monopoly on the fresh water supply on the island. The other 99 islanders are not too happy about this.

What would AnarchoCapitalism (AC) say is the best/right way to handle this situation?

[jthegreat]

Hehehe... Bob is outnumbered 99-to-1, so unless the other islanders are *very* understanding about having no water, they simply take what they want.

[Rduke55]

Borodog, isn't this kind of insulting?

[ QUOTE ]
I reiterate: You're the worst economist I've ever encountered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be throwing the insults around as well.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will continue my "island questioning" later, as this, I think, might expose the fundamental problem I think I might have with AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarchocapitalistic Island - Situation 1

100 people are stranded on a deserted island (assumption: they cannot escape, and they will not be rescued). They want to build a society based on anarchocapitalistic ideas.

One of the islanders, Bob, searches the island, and finds a fresh-water well. It is the only source of fresh water on the island. He clears out a path to the well, removes the weeds &amp; debris around it, builds a pully system in order to get the water out, and a protective shack around it to keep the critters (and thieves) out. He now has a monopoly on the fresh water supply on the island. The other 99 islanders are not too happy about this.

What would AnarchoCapitalism (AC) say is the best/right way to handle this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your question doesn't really have anything to do with AC specifically. It's a question about how property rights are acquired, and that is a question that affects all forms of society, not just AC.

And just like there are hard moral issues, there are also hard property-rights-acquisition issues. (In fact, I see the latter as a subset of the former.) That doesn't diminish the value of morality or of property rights, however.

As a practical matter, private ownership of the well would probably produce better results than communal ownership. (With communal ownership, you will have tragedy-of-the-commons-type problems.) How would ownership be assigned? An auction would make the most sense, IMO.

(Clearing a path to it and doing some weeding should probably be insufficient, since the well is a scarce natural resource rather than a plentiful one. The guy who did the weeding, however, should probably get credit for that in his bid, or should be reimbursed for it by the winner of the auction.)

I will emphasize, though, that if you like my auction idea, that's not really a mark in favor of AC. And if you dislike it, that's not a mark against AC. To go back to the AC = evolution analogy, the question you raised is really an abiogenesis issue, not an evolution issue. AC (like other societal forms) is about protecting property rights (etc.), not assigning them in the first place.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog, isn't this kind of insulting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, that's because it's an insult and not an ad hominem ARGUMENT. There's a pretty sizable difference between the two.

Let's go back over the exchange, just to make this clearer.

MathEconomist: Austrian Economics is crap.

Borodog: No it's not. Here is a coherent argument with logical points A, B, and C as to why not. Would you care to refute?

MathEconomist: Sure. You're wrong and you're an idiot. No economist worth his salt thinks Austrians are worth anything. Only third-rate colleges teach Austrian Economics. You don't know anything.

Boro: You failed to refute my argument or any of the logical points I made. Instead you made ad hominem attacks and appealed to ridicule in your attempt to discredit my arguments. So, in conclusion...

[ QUOTE ]


You're the worst economist I've ever encountered.



[/ QUOTE ]

Will

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
AC (like other societal forms) is about protecting property rights (etc.), not assigning them in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this isn't just an AC issue, but it is one of the questions I have in regards to the philosophy of AC. I promise I will continue other questions later, but for now, humor me.

Private property rights aren't common to all forms of society. So, would AC think it would be OK to have all 100 people get equal ownership of the well? Or not have ownership at all?

The problem with the auction, is that there is no monetary system on this island. It's a newly found resource, and nobody has much of anything. And, who exactly are they going to pay for it anyway? If you say the buyer has to pay everyone equally for it, then you are saying that everybody already owns it, right? If so, then if one of the owners doesn't want to sell?

[ QUOTE ]
(Clearing a path to it and doing some weeding should probably be insufficient, since the well is a scarce natural resource rather than a plentiful one.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding was that adding work to a resource is sufficient for ownership. So, scarce resources are treated differently? Who definese "scarce"? Clearly the land itself on this island is scarce. So nobody can own the land? Pretty much everything on this island, in fact, is scarce. So how do we decide how much work someone has to do with a resource before they can claim ownership? And what if more than 1 person wants the opportunity to do work with the same resource?

(Again, I will move beyond this, and just assume ownership later... but for now, I want to know what the pupils of AC would find acceptable in accordance with what is necessary for an AC society.)

IMPORTANT UPDATE:
I am mostly interested in hearing from Borodog &amp; others (PVN, The Don, and maurile(?)) who are AC advocates. Otherwise, I will not have a very good understanding of what those who have studied and advocate AC truly believe.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Anarchocapitalistic Island - Situation 1

100 people are stranded on a deserted island (assumption: they cannot escape, and they will not be rescued). They want to build a society based on anarchocapitalistic ideas.

One of the islanders, Bob, searches the island, and finds a fresh-water well. It is the only source of fresh water on the island. He clears out a path to the well, removes the weeds &amp; debris around it, builds a pully system in order to get the water out, and a protective shack around it to keep the critters (and thieves) out. He now has a monopoly on the fresh water supply on the island. The other 99 islanders are not too happy about this.

What would AnarchoCapitalism (AC) say is the best/right way to handle this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this would very much depend on the people involved. If 50 of the 99 remaining people believe that Bob has a right to exclusive control over the water supply, and are willing to defend "his" well, then he keeps the well and can make whatever demands he likes. Of course, the number of people supporting Bob is going to be based largely on what he asks for the water. If Bob's rates are reasonable, then it is likely that his private ownership of the well will be more beneficial to the island society than any form of communal ownership (or at least that it will be accepted). If, on the other hand, Bob's rates are exorbitant, then the other islanders are not likely to put up with his monopoly. They outnumber him 99-to-1 and so he is responsible to them and his "control" of the water supply doesn't represent a "true" monopoly.

Personally I think the anarcho-capitalists suggesting that there is a certain way to handle the situation that is "right" are missing the point. No economic system is theoretically perfect. Every economic theory depends on certain assumptions about human nature. If humans are completely altruistic and reasonable, then it is hard to argue against anarcho-syndicalism as the "ideal." Of course, if humans are completely altruistic it isn't relevant what kind of "system" should be used, as everything will tend to work out regardless. Of course, a single self-interested person could wreak havoc in such a society.

It is also worth noting that anarchism is anarchism. Different anarchists are often at each other's throats over which "system" of anarchy is best. But these arguments are ultimately speculative. The point of anarchy is that there is no regulative authority. Nobody is enforcing anarcho-capitalism over anarcho-socialism, for example. The principle of anarchy is that a social equilibrium will come into existence. Anarcho-capitalists believe that equilibrium is going to look a lot like capitalism. Anarcho-socialists believe that equilibrium is going to look a lot like socialism.

Personally I think it's clear it will depend on the population. If a group of 100 hardcore anarcho-capitalists land on the island the initial state of things will be fairly anarcho-capitalist. If the population of a hippy commune lands on the island, things are likely to look much more socialistic initially (though I have reservations as to whether such a communal system would last very long). If a group of fundamentalist Christians land on the island, they'll all be dead within the week (kidding, kidding, they'll probably just set up a tyrannical despotism).

To me the most compelling argument against anarchism relies on the premise that most humans "want to follow," want to be enslaved, and that only a small minority want to be free or to lead. Under the assumption that 99% of people are just "sheep" who will respond favorably to pressure, I think anarchism is on rather weak ground. Eventually someone is likely to gather enough power to establish what amounts to a government or dictatorship. But if we believe that humans have some modicum of reason and of responsibility, I think anarchism is clearly correct. If any one person or group tries to put himself in a position of authority, the rest of the population will prevent him from doing so. This creates a natural balance. It prevents any group from becoming overly-disenfranchised, and it prevents any group from becoming overly-powerful.

Based on my estimation of human psychology and sociology, and of human nature in general, I think anarcho-capitalism makes the most sense. That doesn't mean I think it should be "enforced," I don't think anything should be enforced. And it doesn't mean I cherish capitalism; I believe that government usually, if not always, does more harm than good and that anarcho-capitalism is the most logical alternative. There is no part of my belief that suggest AC is "right" or "best" in any pure moral context. I would imagine others have somewhat different views.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much everything on this island, in fact, is scarce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are coconuts scarce? If coconuts are scarce that changes the whole scenario. I think it's fair to say that an "island scenario," unless it states otherwise, includes the assumption that coconuts are plentiful.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog, isn't this kind of insulting?

[ QUOTE ]
I reiterate: You're the worst economist I've ever encountered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be throwing the insults around as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's insulting. Look how he entered the thread. He's a dick.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Borodog, isn't this kind of insulting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, that's because it's an insult and not an ad hominem ARGUMENT. There's a pretty sizable difference between the two.

Let's go back over the exchange, just to make this clearer.

MathEconomist: Austrian Economics is crap.

Borodog: No it's not. Here is a coherent argument with logical points A, B, and C as to why not. Would you care to refute?

MathEconomist: Sure. You're wrong and you're an idiot. No economist worth his salt thinks Austrians are worth anything. Only third-rate colleges teach Austrian Economics. You don't know anything.

Boro: You failed to refute my argument or any of the logical points I made. Instead you made ad hominem attacks and appealed to ridicule in your attempt to discredit my arguments. So, in conclusion...

[ QUOTE ]


You're the worst economist I've ever encountered.



[/ QUOTE ]

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[KipBond]

I should add that I am mostly interested in hearing from Boro &amp; others who are AC advocates.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much everything on this island, in fact, is scarce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are coconuts scarce? If coconuts are scarce that changes the whole scenario. I think it's fair to say that an "island scenario," unless it states otherwise, includes the assumption that coconuts are plentiful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scarcity is relative. There are far fewer coconuts on this island than there are in hawaii, for instance. But, there are coconut trees, but they are not unlimited, and it takes time for more to grow.

[KipBond]

I have updated my previous post with this:

[ QUOTE ]
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
I am mostly interested in hearing from Borodog &amp; others (PVN, The Don, and maurile(?)) who are AC advocates. Otherwise, I will not have a very good understanding of what those who have studied and advocate AC truly believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Private property rights aren't common to all forms of society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, but even deciding that there will be no private property rights necessitates making a decision about how private property may be acquired. (In the communist case, the answer is that it can't be.)

[ QUOTE ]
So, would AC think it would be OK to have all 100 people get equal ownership of the well? Or not have ownership at all?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think AC has an opinion about how to initially assign property rights. But if all 100 people initially have ownership, they would probably end up selling it to the highest bidder -- namely, the guy who can operate it most efficiently. Also, if it were given to a random person by lottery, he'd also end up selling it to the same person.

The Coase theorem says that, if transaction costs are negligible, initial ownership rights don't really matter. The resources will end up being allocated the same way no matter how they were originall assigned.

On the island, transaction costs may not be negligible. But the overally principle still works. As long as trading is allowed, resources will end up being used more or less efficiently no matter who gets initial ownership of the well. (Unless a lunatic gets initial ownership and wants to destroy it just for fun. But with an assumption of rationality, that wouldn't happen.)

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with the auction, is that there is no monetary system on this island.

[/ QUOTE ]
There may or may not be a monetary system, but you don't need money to hold an auction anyway. The islanders can be creative.

[ QUOTE ]
And, who exactly are they going to pay for it anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]
They'd probably pay everyone else. I.e., if the winning bid is 99 bananas, each of the losing 99 people gets a banana.

[ QUOTE ]
If you say the buyer has to pay everyone equally for it, then you are saying that everybody already owns it, right? If so, then if one of the owners doesn't want to sell?

[/ QUOTE ]
There would be a fight, I guess.

Again, none of this stuff has anything to do with AC.

[ QUOTE ]
So, scarce resources are treated differently?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I think they ought to be. What do you think?

My answers are no better than yours here. Whatever you think makes sense for how to initially distribute property is probably just as good as whatever I think makes sense.

There is no "AC" answer to these questions, just like there's no evolutionary biology answer to how the universe came into existence.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I am mostly interested in hearing from Borodog &amp; others (PVN, The Don, and maurile(?)) who are AC advocates.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I'm familiar with much of the AC literature and believe I have a good understanding of the pro-AC arguments.

[madnak]

I need an exact coconut number before I can take part in this discussion.

[madnak]

I'm finding your input valuable, so please keep posting even if KipBond doesn't want you to.

[Borodog]

Well, I appreciate your interest and willingness to learn, but in many ways I think your "100 people on a desert island with only one well" scenario is highly artificial, and hence, probably not very useful. I agree with a lot of what madnak said however. It would depend highly on the people. Where do these 100 people come from? Are they shipwrecked from the US? They'd probably happily start up a state and destroy the place in short order. If they were a group of anarchocapitalist settlers who had bought the island with the intention of creating Anarchia, they'd probably have worked all of this out ahead of time with a system of competitive bidding for land and resource allocation or something. They'd have the whole place surveyed and know all about the one well situation. They'd probably have formed a company that owns the well with all the settlers owning shares in the company's stock that grants them water dividends. Who knows? I don't know. But people are smart enough to figure it out.

The desert island thought experiment is extremely useful for understanding economic concepts, but again, trying to plan out exactly how it would work is probably pointless. Any plausible mechanism I put forward, you could probably think up a problem for. Then I would think of a plausible resolution, and you would think of another problem. And so ad infinitum. This is what people deal with every day in the real world, an endless stream of problems that they have to resolve. And every person's problems, resources, skills and abilities, are different.

I developed an idea a long time ago, that the majority of people live in "practical anarchy." By practical anarchy I mean that most people live their lives with as little contact or involvement with government as possible. They avoid contact with government entities (going to the DMV, filing taxes) like they avoid going to the dentist. Most people I know dislike when a police car pulls in behind them in traffic (far from feeling protected and served, they wonder if they're going to get a ticket). Even in something as intrusive and daily an occurance as public schooling, most parents see their kids go out the door at 6:30am and come home at 3:30pm and that's about it.

In other words, for almost all of the myriad problems that people have to solve during their lives, they solve them personally, perhaps with the help of friends, family, or coworkers, without resort to the government. Only when a problem comes up for which the government has monopolized the means of solution do people interact with the government, and the experience is usually frustrating and unsatisfactory. This is why I think if a magic switch could be thrown that would vaporize all government services, people would rapidly adjust. You'd have to find something to do with your kids during the day, but that's ok, since one parent wouldn't have to work a full time job just to pay the other parent's taxes anymore.

I know that the statists reading along will be unconvinced by these remarks.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm finding your input valuable, so please keep posting even if KipBond doesn't want you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I don't mind other people replying of course... but I hope you understand my reasons for wanting to hear from the AC advocates. Just like I wouldn't ask an atheist how to become a Christian, I need to hear from those who have a strong belief that AC is good system, and have studied it thoroughly.

Maurile is at least pretty close, I think. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no "AC" answer to these questions, just like there's no evolutionary biology answer to how the universe came into existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Your conclusion is that AC only applies after individual property rights exist. I will move on shortly, I hope.

However, if these people on the island want an AC society, they will need to decide how to distribute ownership. And, in the case of the well, I can imagine the owner of it will be an immensly powerful and wealthy person on the island, as everyone needs his resource to live.

Also, in response to an earlier reply from someone, Bob can initially only charge a "thank you" for the water. And then, once he has established a firm ownership of the resource, slowly start charging more and more for it. At this point (and maybe even before), AC would dictate that it would be wrong for his property to then be taken from him (coercion).

Which, is one of the points of my question. If Bob is an AC-advocate, and he claims he owns the well, what grounds would the other AC-advocates have to disagree? Bob has added work to the resource, so it should be his now, right? Again, I will just assume it has been distributed and pursue other questions later.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob can initially only charge a "thank you" for the water. And then, once he has established a firm ownership of the resource, slowly start charging more and more for it. At this point (and maybe even before), AC would dictate that it would be wrong for his property to then be taken from him (coercion).

Which, is one of the points of my question. If Bob is an AC-advocate, and he claims he owns the well, what grounds would the other AC-advocates have to disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good. Now you've picked a specific example: a scarce resource that everybody needs access to.

The question is, should the resource be privately owned, or publicly owned? If privately owned, should it be publicly regulated? (As Milton Friedman said about these situations: "there is only a choice among three evils: private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, and government operation.")

There are problems with each alternative, and which one is least bad is an empirical question. (Many AC-proponents approach things from a natural rights perspective. For these people, showing them that public ownership or regulation has better results than private ownership will not be persuasive. Other AC-proponents are more utilitarian, and the reason that they favor AC is that they believe private ownership will produce the best results. But if you can show them that they are empirically wrong, they would change their minds.)

The AC answer is that it should be privately owned and not subject to any public regulation. The owner can do what he wants with it.

People can argue about which alternative is the least of the three evils, and it's a discussion well worth having. Moreover, unlike the issue of who gets the well in the first place, it is an issue on which AC takes a definite stand.

I will hold off on making an argument for the AC position on this issue because I have to get some work done. But I'm sure others will jump in.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I appreciate your interest and willingness to learn, but in many ways I think your "100 people on a desert island with only one well" scenario is highly artificial, and hence, probably not very useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a way to ask questions -- how would a group of anarchocapitalists deal with this. I'd appreciate an attempt to answer, despite the fear that I may come up with another question. I ensure you I will move on to other questions, but think that this initial question is important. When I do move on, as maurile indicates that I need to, will you dismiss my future questions for fear that I might come up with more questions? If you don't know all the answers, that's fine -- nobody does. But, an attempt at an answer would at least be helpful -- I think. NotReady does a good job at answering people's questions about God and Christianity, even though he knows they'll just keep asking more questions. I promise that my motives are better than most of the people who have asked NotReady questions. This is a way for me to learn, and for AC-advocates to clarify their positions for people to hopefully understand them.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with a lot of what madnak said however. It would depend highly on the people. Where do these 100 people come from? Are they shipwrecked from the US? They'd probably happily start up a state and destroy the place in short order. If they were a group of anarchocapitalist settlers who had bought the island with the intention of creating Anarchia, they'd probably have worked all of this out ahead of time with a system of competitive bidding for land and resource allocation or something. They'd have the whole place surveyed and know all about the one well situation. They'd probably have formed a company that owns the well with all the settlers owning shares in the company's stock that grants them water dividends.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 100 people are AC-advocates. Like the movie "Lost", they were stranded there, with no prior plans for settlement. They are from various countries, with the one thing in common that they are AC-advocates. They realize they will spend the rest of their lives there, so they want to start a society they consider to be the best/most-efficient/right way to do it.

So, we'll stick with the company with 100 stock holder idea. 99 of them think this is a great idea -- but Bob doesn't. He added labor to the well, so he feels that he should own it. How is this resolved?

My understanding is that AC advocates a certain method of obtaining property rights:

From WikiPedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism):
[ QUOTE ]
Anarcho-capitalism, as formulated by Rothbard and others, holds strongly to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom:

[...] The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a selfowner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the well was unowned, and Bob added his labor to it. It should be his now, right? Should the other 99 AC-advocates accept this? Why or why not?

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will continue my "island questioning" later, as this, I think, might expose the fundamental problem I think I might have with AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarchocapitalistic Island - Situation 1

100 people are stranded on a deserted island (assumption: they cannot escape, and they will not be rescued). They want to build a society based on anarchocapitalistic ideas.

One of the islanders, Bob, searches the island, and finds a fresh-water well. It is the only source of fresh water on the island. He clears out a path to the well, removes the weeds &amp; debris around it, builds a pully system in order to get the water out, and a protective shack around it to keep the critters (and thieves) out. He now has a monopoly on the fresh water supply on the island. The other 99 islanders are not too happy about this.

What would AnarchoCapitalism (AC) say is the best/right way to handle this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing is that they want AC, so they pretty much shot themselves in the foot in the first place about these kinds of things.

Of course in my society in an island about a mile to the west of the AC one, where people cooperate for the common good and don't ejaculate at the utterances of 'private property', that man notified everyone instead of scrambling to hoard everything for himself like a goddamn animal. I'm pretty sure the majority of the AC people would be swimming that mile pretty [censored] quickly.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going to get involved in this. Except to point out that there are very few professional economists who believe that free markets can provide for all needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were times when very few professionals believed that natural selection could provide the variety, complexity, and adaptability of life we see now, and times when very few professionals believed that a big bang could provide the variety and complexity of the cosmos.

Letting go of control is a big problem for most people. It's hard to accept that micromanagement is counterproductive, especially for people that have built their careers around the concept.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Working at a state university doesn't really qualify one as a government employee

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in a strict sense; one can be a contractor working "at" a university and clearly not be a state employee. Graduate students with assistantships receive stipends, but no guarantees of continuing employment or benefits that other university empolyees get, so they might not be considered state employees. For just about anyone else that is directly employed by the university (faculty or staff), however, it's pretty clear they are state employees.

For purposes of civil liability, these people would most certainly be considered state employees.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Until one of you can convince me that, if the US were an AC society, I wouldn't be jailed for being an atheist by nutcase Christians with the money and desire to pay for it, you haven't a leg to stand on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until you can convince me that I won't be jailed for enjoying certain substances by a nutcase anti-drug government with the money and desire to pay for it, you haven't a leg to stand on.

[KipBond]

Hey PVN! Good to see you here! I just want to say that I agree with these things you've said:

[ QUOTE ]
Letting go of control is a big problem for most people. It's hard to accept that micromanagement is counterproductive, especially for people that have built their careers around the concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Until you can convince me that I won't be jailed for enjoying certain substances by a nutcase anti-drug government with the money and desire to pay for it, you haven't a leg to stand on.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Well, I mean, he has a leg to stand on, but I agree that the anti-drug policies of this government are not good.)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing is that they want AC, so they pretty much shot themselves in the foot in the first place about these kinds of things.

Of course in my society in an island about a mile to the west of the AC one, where people cooperate for the common good and don't ejaculate at the utterances of 'private property', that man notified everyone instead of scrambling to hoard everything for himself like a goddamn animal. I'm pretty sure the majority of the AC people would be swimming that mile pretty [censored] quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does supporting AC mean that these islanders are selfish, greedy, cruel, and spiteful? I am a AC supporter, and the first thing I would do upon landing is take a walk on the beach. Relax a little. Maybe do some exploring. Eventually I might have some resources to trade in terms of information about the island and its ecosystems. Not because I "scrambled to hoard it," but because I enjoy exploring and observing nature. I would probably find a solitary cove and spend most of my time there. I'd trade occasionally and involve myself with the other islanders to fulfill my social needs, but my life would be very simple. I would feel little need to involve myself in games of wealth and status.

Does the fact I support AC mean that I should be ambitious and want to rule the island at all costs? I must have missed the memo. I suppose I'd have a rude awakening when the other ravening capitalists skinned me alive and used my bones as ornaments, eh?

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Until you can convince me that I won't be jailed for enjoying certain substances by a nutcase anti-drug government with the money and desire to pay for it, you haven't a leg to stand on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Philosophy and logic just aren't your strong suit, are they?

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a AC supporter, and the first thing I would do upon landing is take a walk on the beach. Relax a little. Maybe do some exploring.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you're relaxing, Bob's out homesteading the water supply.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am a AC supporter, and the first thing I would do upon landing is take a walk on the beach. Relax a little. Maybe do some exploring.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you're relaxing, Bob's out homesteading the water supply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Madnak could enjoy a lot more walks on the beach if he had a monopoly on the water source to earn him a comfortable living.

[madnak]

If I own the water source, I have to maintain the water source. Far too much work for my comfort. I'd be responsible for the water, people would be pestering me about it all day, I'd have to clean away the weeds and draw it out of the well.

Do you blame Bob for asking a little bit in return?

Or maybe I should give offerings to Bob, Bobette, and Bob's uncle. And perform a ritual to ensure my loyalty. And fill out some paperwork. And stand in line for 4 hours in order to use the well.

To think Bob wanted me to gather some herbs for him when I could have gotten away with so little!

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
If I own the water source, I have to maintain the water source. Far too much work for my comfort. I'd be responsible for the water, people would be pestering me about it all day, I'd have to clean away the weeds and draw it out of the well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you could hire someone to do that for you.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I appreciate your interest and willingness to learn, but in many ways I think your "100 people on a desert island with only one well" scenario is highly artificial, and hence, probably not very useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a way to ask questions -- how would a group of anarchocapitalists deal with this. I'd appreciate an attempt to answer, despite the fear that I may come up with another question. I ensure you I will move on to other questions, but think that this initial question is important. When I do move on, as maurile indicates that I need to, will you dismiss my future questions for fear that I might come up with more questions? If you don't know all the answers, that's fine -- nobody does. But, an attempt at an answer would at least be helpful -- I think. NotReady does a good job at answering people's questions about God and Christianity, even though he knows they'll just keep asking more questions. I promise that my motives are better than most of the people who have asked NotReady questions. This is a way for me to learn, and for AC-advocates to clarify their positions for people to hopefully understand them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not fear. It's weariness. I've had these discussions a thousand times. But I have to say, having an intelligent discussion with you is better than having a one-sided flamefest with MathEconotroll, so I'll try.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with a lot of what madnak said however. It would depend highly on the people. Where do these 100 people come from? Are they shipwrecked from the US? They'd probably happily start up a state and destroy the place in short order. If they were a group of anarchocapitalist settlers who had bought the island with the intention of creating Anarchia, they'd probably have worked all of this out ahead of time with a system of competitive bidding for land and resource allocation or something. They'd have the whole place surveyed and know all about the one well situation. They'd probably have formed a company that owns the well with all the settlers owning shares in the company's stock that grants them water dividends.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 100 people are AC-advocates. Like the movie "Lost", they were stranded there, with no prior plans for settlement. They are from various countries, with the one thing in common that they are AC-advocates. They realize they will spend the rest of their lives there, so they want to start a society they consider to be the best/most-efficient/right way to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I picture them as 100 anarcocapitalist Austrian economists meeting for a conference on anarchocapitalism aboard a cruise ship. The ship sinks and the group is stranded on the island without forewarning.

[ QUOTE ]
So, we'll stick with the company with 100 stock holder idea. 99 of them think this is a great idea -- but Bob doesn't. He added labor to the well, so he feels that he should own it. How is this resolved?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this probably isn't what happened. You said that they just got stranded, so they probably didn't plan ahead and form a company. So I'm just going to go off on my own tangent.

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that AC advocates a certain method of obtaining property rights:

From WikiPedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism):
[ QUOTE ]
Anarcho-capitalism, as formulated by Rothbard and others, holds strongly to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom:

[...] The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a selfowner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the well was unowned, and Bob added his labor to it. It should be his now, right? Should the other 99 AC-advocates accept this? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, a technical point. The "labor mixing" is not really relevent to homesteading. For example, if I chop down a tree in my neighbor's yard for firewood, do I own the resulting firewood? I mixed my labor with it, right? No. My neighbor owns the firewood, and I'm liable for damages to his property. Furthermore I can own something without "mixing any labor with it." If I walk down a deserted beach on the shore of Antarctica and pick up a rock, I haven't "mixed any labor with it," but I still own it. So "labor mixing," is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish ownership. Not to mention kludgy. Now, using or improving a resource can serve as constructive notice of ownership; if you walk through the woods and find a log cabin, the fact that labor has clearly been applied gives you constructive notice that the property is likely already owned, even if no one is there to tell you so. All that is necessary for homesteading is first occupation. Defensible first occupation also necessarilly entails demonstrable control of the resource in question. For example, I cannot homestead the Moon, nor could I land on an unoccupied continent and claim I own the whole thing. I'm not sure of the terminology used in the literature, by the way, I just made that term up (demonstrable control), so it probably goes by something else in philosophical treatises on such things; it just seemed necessary to me.

Anyway, so the 100 ACAEs (anarchocapitalist Austrian Economists) wash up on shore and start stumbling around. Bob stumbles upon a supply of potable water, the well. We will presume that the well can provide enough potable water for all survivors, because if it can't, I don't care what social order you postulate, it will not be pretty.

The well we imagine, is deep. Say it's a limestone cave, and 20 feet below the surface is fresh water, filtered by the soil. Bob runs back to the life rafts and grabs some rope and something that can be used as a container (incidentally, we can see that since nobody owns the liferafts, they will rapidly be canabalized for resources). He runs back to the well and lifts out a few cups of water, and drinks his fill. He then yells out to his companions that he's found drinkable water.

Pretty soon 100 ACAEs are crowded around the well. It is slow and laborious raising a few cups of water at a time from the well. After someone carelessly drops the container into the well, Bob has to carefully climb down, risking his neck to retrieve it. After that Bob doesn't trust anyone else to run the system, and spends his time raising the water for everyone.

Bob, I think pretty clearly has homesteaded the well. Since this is the only potable water source on the island, it is obviously valuable. Bob is going to invest his time and effort in doing things like improving the methods of raising water, clearing better access to the well, and quite frankly, guarding the well. But he's already busy raising water, and he's getting pretty hungry.

Pretty soon though, Ted says, "Hey Bob! If I can show you a better way to raise water, will you let me to the front of the line?" There's some grumbling, but everyone in line eventually agress that if Ted can improve the productivity of the well, everyone will benefit. Bob agrees, and Ted runs off and returns with a big circle of canvas cut from a liferaft and threaded with rope around the edge to form a waterproof cinched sack that can hold several gallons. Ted goes to the front of the line, and people get water much more quickly.

Eventually Bob is getting pretty hungry, but he doesn't want to leave the well. Frank and Phil, recently returned from the beach with some newly caught fish, promise Bob that they'll establish a permanent contract with Bob to bring him fish in exchange for pre-emptive water access whenever they need it. Bob consents and has fish for dinner.

Meanwhile, other people are scouting the island, identifying possibly valuable resources and homesteading them. Bill turns out to be really good at building a mean lean-to, and can barter his services.

At this point, the economy will be primitive and barter based. The closest thing to money might be water access rights, which Bob might right out on slips of paper, which could then be traded amongst the population. It's hard to say if a commodity money or moneys would arise on the island.

Bob's monopoly on the water, by the way, annoys Tina no end. She commandeers the last of the unclaimed lifeboats, and suspends it between some palm trees to catch rain water in the storm that appears to be brewing. After it rains, Tina can compete with Bob, and the barter cost of water will go down on the island.

Note that I don't think any of this particularly has much to do with the fact that the survivors are ACAEs, except in as much as they will probably realize that cooperation will be higher EV than fighting over resources. Sure, they could swarm Bob and try to take control of the well, but it's small, and you'd have 99 people fighting for access to the water, each with a small chance of both surviving and controlling the water, so it's a massively -EV proposition. It's much easier to just go find or produce something that Bob wants in exchange for water.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
But I have to say, having an intelligent discussion with you is better than having a one-sided flamefest with MathEconotroll, so I'll try.

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao

[KipBond]

OK. So, all that to say that Bob owns the well because he was the first one to get to it. Fair enough -- I look forward to see what Maurile has to say about that, too.

So, Bob owns the only source of fresh water on the island -- contrary to Tina's plans, it rarely rains on this island, so she won't have much to compete with Bob with.

Bob can now charge whatever he wants for the water. As we all know, you can live a lot longer without food, than without water, so Bob shouldn't have a hard time getting someone to get food for him in exchange for some water. He's smart, so he's not going to offer any "lifetime supplies". He owns the most precious commodity on this island -- people need it to live, so they're willing to trade almost anything for it.

I assume (correct me if I'm wrong), that since Bob now owns the well, he needn't guard it at all times, right? If he leaves the well to gather his own food or take a piss, someone can't confiscate it, right? That would be stealing, I'm pretty sure. So, even if nobody is willing to help Bob with food right away, he can just go get his own food -- people will need water soon enough, that's for sure.

So, now that Bob has a monopoly on a vitally necessary commodity, what's to prevent him from owning pretty much the entire island, and having all the other 99 inhabitants be workers for him? Remember, they are AC-advocates -- so they think violating someone's property rights is the most heinous and immoral thing to do (right?). So, by agreeing to let Bob have sole ownership of the well, they have practically sealed their fate as future servants of Bob. Right?

[KipBond]

Anarchocapitalistic Island - Situation 2

Time goes by, and Bob employs the help of some people -- he pays them with water, and other things he has ownership of through trading with others (for water). 10 of the strongest men are employed by him as guards and water-workers (Bob no longer pulleys up his own water).

Tina is still trying to compete with Bob by gathering as much water as she can when it rains. But, Bob finds this threatening, so he has some of his men tear down her tarps and procure her water on a regular basis. What's to prevent Bob from getting away with this? Is there any basis for law? If Bob owns practically everything, is there any way the others can maintain their AC-advocacy (thus not being immoral themselves), and deal with Bob's tyranny? How?

(Note: Bob has made it known that anyone who betrays him or tries to seek retribution against him, or helps anyone who has, will be punished by not getting any water. Ever.)

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
OK. So, all that to say that Bob owns the well because he was the first one to get to it. Fair enough -- I look forward to see what Maurile has to say about that, too.

So, Bob owns the only source of fresh water on the island -- contrary to Tina's plans, it rarely rains on this island, so she won't have much to compete with Bob with.

Bob can now charge whatever he wants for the water. As we all know, you can live a lot longer without food, than without water, so Bob shouldn't have a hard time getting someone to get food for him in exchange for some water. He's smart, so he's not going to offer any "lifetime supplies". He owns the most precious commodity on this island -- people need it to live, so they're willing to trade almost anything for it.

I assume (correct me if I'm wrong), that since Bob now owns the well, he needn't guard it at all times, right? If he leaves the well to gather his own food or take a piss, someone can't confiscate it, right? That would be stealing, I'm pretty sure. So, even if nobody is willing to help Bob with food right away, he can just go get his own food -- people will need water soon enough, that's for sure.

So, now that Bob has a monopoly on a vitally necessary commodity, what's to prevent him from owning pretty much the entire island, and having all the other 99 inhabitants be workers for him? Remember, they are AC-advocates -- so they think violating someone's property rights is the most heinous and immoral thing to do (right?). So, by agreeing to let Bob have sole ownership of the well, they have practically sealed their fate as future servants of Bob. Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to create arbitrary restrictions at every turn, that 100 people magicly get stranded on an island and no one will be looking for them, that there's only 1 well, that it rarely rains, I think the whole exercise is rather silly. Human bings are smart. They figure out ways to do things. If with everything I postulate you arbitrarily decide, "No, they can't do that because of some inverse deus ex machina," what's the point?

And you are wrong. Bob would have to defend the well. Why? Because he's a human being and so is everyone else on the island. Hungry, thirsty human beings. And if Bob tries to install himself as King by ransoming water, he's probably going to be violently overthrown.

So Bob, being a human being, is going to be incentivized to both be reasonable in his dealings with the other islanders (lest he risk his life) and to invest in the defense of his property. People tend to spend on security in proportion to their perceived value of their property and their perceived level of risk.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Anarchocapitalistic Island - Situation 2

Time goes by, and Bob employs the help of some people -- he pays them with water, and other things he has ownership of through trading with others (for water). 10 of the strongest men are employed by him as guards and water-workers (Bob no longer pulleys up his own water).

Tina is still trying to compete with Bob by gathering as much water as she can when it rains. But, Bob finds this threatening, so he has some of his men tear down her tarps and procure her water on a regular basis. What's to prevent Bob from getting away with this? Is there any basis for law? If Bob owns practically everything, is there any way the others can maintain their AC-advocacy (thus not being immoral themselves), and deal with Bob's tyranny? How?

(Note: Bob has made it known that anyone who betrays him or tries to seek retribution against him, or helps anyone who has, will be punished by not getting any water. Ever.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The people getting their water from Tina, not to mention her personal friends, will stop them. Bob and his thugs are a minority. If they attack someone providing water they are essentially threatening the lives of everyone on the island. I think a posse of volunteers would probably form and Bob and his violently aggressive henchmen would probably get killed.

Bob of course, being an economist, would know that the whole scheme is risky and massively -EV for him. Instead he'd invest his capital and labor by satisfying more islanders, thus making his own life easier. In effect, he makes economic calculations that show that attacking someone else is risky and likely to get him killed, but that investing in satisfying customers will always pay off without the risk of getting killed.

[madnak]

You've basically just said there's a government on this anarcho-capitalist island. Obviously Bob and his thugs aren't really very anarcho-capitalist, are they? And not very smart either, if they think they can stand up to the combined might and intellect of the rest of the islanders.

And the situations are getting out of hand.

What happens if there's a pack of horrible monsters on the island? The islanders don't have any hope of defending themselves, all 100 of them don't stand a chance against a single monster. The monsters are determined to kill off the islanders, and they have complete knowledge of the island and control over its resources. Oh also, there's no food and water within 10,000 miles and lightning has a tendency to randomly strike the islanders. And there are blizzards and hurricanes on a daily basis.

How's anarcho-capitalism going to solve that one? Right?

Honestly. AC is never presented as the solution to every possible problem. It isn't a recipe for utopia. There's no rule against stealing. "We can't take the water because it belongs to Bob" is statist thinking. Law and order. Here are the iron-clad rules, we can't break them. Those don't exist in AC. There are no "unbreakable" rules. The rules are defined collectively, by the communities that live by them and by the agencies that enforce them. Nobody is going to let Bob tyrannize them because "he's the rightful owner." That would completely go against the basic principles of anarchy. And the AC people are going to realize that taking away the water supply will result in murder, theft, brutality and desperation. A thirsty person is a dangerous person (and these are AC supporters, not the kind likely to be cowed).

What would Bob's motivation be for his actions? Is he sociopathic? Too bad for him. Sociopaths in confined island settlements don't tend to survive long, especially under AC.

As for how the water's going to get distributed, that's a matter for the people, not for AC. Governments write prescriptions that are supposed to "solve" problems. Anarchism encourages people to take responsibility for the problems themselves. We're talking about the latter here, so try not to present situations for the former.

[chezlaw]

Hi Borodog

I haven't read the whole thread and know litle of economics so keep those guns holstered if you can ...

If you start with a free market then it seems likely to me that government will emerge naturally from it. In evolutionary terms, government is a very fit construct and once it gets going it sustains itself and grows very efficiently.

In the free market, certain people will do very well and over time will accumulate many and diverse interests. These will require some sort of organisation to manage them and its these organisations, which will be armed and control many resources that at some point will make the leap into government. It aids them that they can offer some of those resources to large numbers of poor people.

How do you prevent this?

chez

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey PVN! Good to see you here! I just want to say that I agree with these things you've said:

[ QUOTE ]
Letting go of control is a big problem for most people. It's hard to accept that micromanagement is counterproductive, especially for people that have built their careers around the concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminded me of something:

[ QUOTE ]
In the pursuit of learning, every day somehting is acquired.
In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped.
Less and less is done
Until non-action is achieved.
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone.

The world is ruled by letting things take their course.
It can not be ruled by interfering

[/ QUOTE ]

--- Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching, Chapter Forty-Eight

[ QUOTE ]
Whenever you advise a ruler in the way of Tao, Counsel him not to use force to conquer the universe.
For this would only casue resistance.
Thorn bushes spring up wherever the army has passed.
Lean years follow in the wake of a great war.
Just do what needs to be done
Never take advantage of power.

Achieve results,
But never glory in them.
Achieve results,
But never boast.
Achieve results,
Because this is the natural way.
Achieve results,
But not through violence.

Force is followed by loss of strength.
This is not the way of Tao.
That which goes against the Tao
comes to an early end.

[/ QUOTE ]

--- Chapter Thirty

[ QUOTE ]
The softest thing in the universe
Overcomes the hardest thing in the universe, That without substance can enter where there is no room.
Hence I know the value of non-action.

Teaching without words and work without doing Are understood by very few.

[/ QUOTE ]

--- Chapter Fourty-Three

The other chapters ain't too bad, either.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Borodog

I haven't read the whole thread and know litle of economics so keep those guns holstered if you can ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm perfectly civil to those who are civil.

[ QUOTE ]
If you start with a free market then it seems likely to me that government will emerge naturally from it. In evolutionary terms, government is a very fit construct and once it gets going it sustains itself and grows very efficiently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Governments are not necessarily fit. Governmental fitness would be highly culturally dependent. Since we've had government for a long time, culture has evolved to try to get along with it. With the advent of capitalism, enlightenment ideas about human liberty, and classical economics, culture has clashed with government, trying to shake it's grip (for example the American Revolution and the War Between the States). The American experiment came very close, but the culture was sitll that government was necessary, so the Articles of Confederation pretty much died in infancy, the Constitutional government only lasted 70 years before Lincoln killed it, and the far superior Confederate Constitution was forceably aborted. The problem with all three of course is the idea that government is necessary; the seeds of destruction are written between the lines. As I've explained before, government is a territorial monopolist of justice and force. It defines what justice is and tells the governed how much it will pay for it and uses its monopoly on "legitimate" force to coerce compliance. Human beings can be counted upon to act in self interested ways. Hence human beings in government will act in their own interest by redefining justice to their own benefit, inflating its cost, and using force to assure compliance with the ever costlier and more Orwellian system of justice. This ends in tyranny and rebellion.

The governments we have now did not spontaneously generate; they were crafted by men who believed government was necessary, and more importantly were accepted by a populace that believed government was necessary. In other words, there was a culture that allowed the cancer to start.

I think that it is entirely reasonable to think that if you had a culture where the idea of coercive government was despised and loathed, government could not get a foothold.

[ QUOTE ]
In the free market, certain people will do very well and over time will accumulate many and diverse interests. These will require some sort of organisation to manage them and its these organisations, which will be armed and control many resources that at some point will make the leap into government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? This appears to me to be handwaving, and you simply assume your conclusion. This makes little sense. Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by satisfying customers. Why on Earth would he think it's a smart move to diversify into cercive government? Especially when his company would be immediately attacked by the insurance firms that cover the clients he's attempting to coerce?

Market entrepeneurs make their money satisfying customers. The minute one company tried to shift into the coercion business they would be dismantled financially and physically by lawsuit and force.

[ QUOTE ]
It aids them that they can offer some of those resources to large numbers of poor people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this will carry no weight with you, because it's an entirely different argument (well not really, just a long and winding rabbit trail), but there won't be large numbers of poor people. Unfettered capitalism makes everyone wealthy. Some just wealthier than others.

[ QUOTE ]
How do you prevent this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. The market does.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to create arbitrary restrictions at every turn, that 100 people magicly get stranded on an island and no one will be looking for them, that there's only 1 well, that it rarely rains, I think the whole exercise is rather silly. Human bings are smart. They figure out ways to do things. If with everything I postulate you arbitrarily decide, "No, they can't do that because of some inverse deus ex machina," what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my hypothetical scenario -- it's a thought experiment aimed at learning how AC advocates dealing with certain problems. And, it's working.

[ QUOTE ]
And you are wrong. Bob would have to defend the well. Why? Because he's a human being and so is everyone else on the island. Hungry, thirsty human beings. And if Bob tries to install himself as King by ransoming water, he's probably going to be violently overthrown.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding was that AC did not advocate stealing? You are saying that stealing is OK? These people are AC advocates. They want an AC society. How is Bob's using his own property for personal gain and control against AC ideas? That's what I'm trying to find out, here.

I'm confused -- are you answering my questions in respect to how an AC advocate would think was the best/right way to handle the situation?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anarchocapitalistic Island - Situation 2

Time goes by, and Bob employs the help of some people -- he pays them with water, and other things he has ownership of through trading with others (for water). 10 of the strongest men are employed by him as guards and water-workers (Bob no longer pulleys up his own water).

Tina is still trying to compete with Bob by gathering as much water as she can when it rains. But, Bob finds this threatening, so he has some of his men tear down her tarps and procure her water on a regular basis. What's to prevent Bob from getting away with this? Is there any basis for law? If Bob owns practically everything, is there any way the others can maintain their AC-advocacy (thus not being immoral themselves), and deal with Bob's tyranny? How?

(Note: Bob has made it known that anyone who betrays him or tries to seek retribution against him, or helps anyone who has, will be punished by not getting any water. Ever.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The people getting their water from Tina, not to mention her personal friends, will stop them. Bob and his thugs are a minority. If they attack someone providing water they are essentially threatening the lives of everyone on the island. I think a posse of volunteers would probably form and Bob and his violently aggressive henchmen would probably get killed.

Bob of course, being an economist, would know that the whole scheme is risky and massively -EV for him. Instead he'd invest his capital and labor by satisfying more islanders, thus making his own life easier. In effect, he makes economic calculations that show that attacking someone else is risky and likely to get him killed, but that investing in satisfying customers will always pay off without the risk of getting killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob waits until he has pretty much complete ownership of the island before doing this. He hires as many people as necessary to make sure that nobody can stop him from stopping Tina. AC doesn't provide a method by which one person cannot become so powerful so as to become a tyrant, right? That's fine, I'll move on to other issues, but just wanted to verify that this is the case. The only way to remove the tyrant is by violating the core AC principle of not stealing. Right?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
As for how the water's going to get distributed, that's a matter for the people, not for AC. Governments write prescriptions that are supposed to "solve" problems. Anarchism encourages people to take responsibility for the problems themselves. We're talking about the latter here, so try not to present situations for the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) My understanding was that it was a core AC tenet that stealing is wrong? That coercion over any person't self or property was immoral.

2) "Government" is a possible solution that people can come up with to deal with their problems. Saying that it's "up to the people" and not "the government" is ignoring the fact that a) the government is made up of people, and b) the people can create "the government".

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by satisfying customers. ... Market entrepeneurs make their money satisfying customers. The minute one company tried to shift into the coercion business they would be dismantled financially and physically by lawsuit and force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Microsoft has some pretty coercive business practices. Same with Wal-Mart.

[KipBond]

Anarchocapitalistic Island - Situation 3

Rewind: Bob is a nice guy, and works hard providing a steady source of water to the community. Everybody has their role/jobs and work at providing goods/services to the community in exchange for other goods/services they need. It's good times in AC-island. Until..

PIRATES!

A hoard of pirates storms the island with guns a blazing, killing some people, taking anything of worth, and burning and pillaging the rest. Then they leave.

The islanders rebuild, but 6 months later it happens again -- pirates killing, stealing, pillaging, then leave.

The islanders are pissed, and want to prepare for future attacks.

How will the AC-advocates do this?

They want a group to build weapons and train to stay off the next attacks -- but everybody is busy with their own jobs. One person recommends that everybody pitch in a monthly amount in order to pay for the group to build the army full time. But, what if some of the islanders don't want to pitch in? Clearly the army will still be benefiting them, as it will deter the pirates from coming on to the island -- but they aren't paying. They want to freeload.

How can the AC-society deal with this without violating their core tenets?

[KipBond]

I forgot to comment on this:

[ QUOTE ]
First, a technical point. The "labor mixing" is not really relevent to homesteading. ... Furthermore I can own something without "mixing any labor with it."

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems contrary to what PVN said in another thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4203289&amp;page=0&amp;fpart=2&amp;v c=1##4208451):

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights stem from self-ownership. If you own yourself, you also own your labor. You can sell your labor to others in exchange for property, which is a legitimate way of obtaining a property right. You also can mix your labor with unowned materials, and obtain a property right in the finished product. Homesteading of land is a way of origination property rights in land.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Borodog]

I believe the labor mixing concept ala Adam Smith is an outdated view, for the reasons I stated. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to create ownership.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the labor mixing concept ala Adam Smith is an outdated view, for the reasons I stated. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to create ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noted. I will move on, as maurile suggested, from the "how are property rights obtained", to other matters. We will just assume that the islanders all agree on how property rights are obtained, and are happy with how the property ended up being divided amongst themselves. Now... about them pirates...

[Borodog]

I don't really see the point of the scenario.

Here's a scenario for you. Aliens with superior technology invade and pillage the United States, killing millions and leveling cities. Six months later the same thing happens. Does the form of the US government or the lack thereof have anything to do with this scenario?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see the point of the scenario.

Here's a scenario for you. Aliens with superior technology invade and pillage the United States, killing millions and leveling cities. Six months later the same thing happens. Does the form of the US government or the lack thereof have anything to do with this scenario?

[/ QUOTE ]

Our government is structured to supply a military defense to deal with such things. AC is not. How would the AC-islanders handle it?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
And you are wrong. Bob would have to defend the well. Why? Because he's a human being and so is everyone else on the island. Hungry, thirsty human beings. And if Bob tries to install himself as King by ransoming water, he's probably going to be violently overthrown.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, AC doesn't advocate what you just said, though, right? According to the Non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_axiom), it is wrong to initiate force against someone or their property. (This question is in regards to Bob having the monopoly and charging whatever he wants for the water, prior to him initiating force after he secured his own power.) I just wanted to clarify that AC would not advocate using force to take someone's property, right? Even if they are not there to fight the thief off?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Our government is structured to supply a military defense to deal with such things. AC is not. How would the AC-islanders handle it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Insurance. Quite simply, because of the attacks the islanders will demand protection against future attacks. People will pay insurance relative to what they have to lose (kind of like life insurance is in present time). Competing defense companies will form mercenary armies and produce weapons (etc...) to defend AC island. Because of the recent attack, demand will be very high for defense, and these companies will likely be thriving.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you are wrong. Bob would have to defend the well. Why? Because he's a human being and so is everyone else on the island. Hungry, thirsty human beings. And if Bob tries to install himself as King by ransoming water, he's probably going to be violently overthrown.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, AC doesn't advocate what you just said, though, right? According to the Non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_axiom), it is wrong to initiate force against someone or their property. (This question is in regards to Bob having the monopoly and charging whatever he wants for the water, prior to him initiating force after he secured his own power.) I just wanted to clarify that AC would not advocate using force to take someone's property, right? Even if they are not there to fight the thief off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob would be in the wrong for initiating force against Tina. His monopoly would thus be coercive (since it was forcably created) and people would have the right to overthrow his tyranny. Monopolies cannot form except through coercion.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Anarchocapitalistic Island - Situation 3

Rewind: Bob is a nice guy, and works hard providing a steady source of water to the community. Everybody has their role/jobs and work at providing goods/services to the community in exchange for other goods/services they need. It's good times in AC-island. Until..

PIRATES!

A hoard of pirates storms the island with guns a blazing, killing some people, taking anything of worth, and burning and pillaging the rest. Then they leave.

The islanders rebuild, but 6 months later it happens again -- pirates killing, stealing, pillaging, then leave.

The islanders are pissed, and want to prepare for future attacks.

How will the AC-advocates do this?

They want a group to build weapons and train to stay off the next attacks -- but everybody is busy with their own jobs. One person recommends that everybody pitch in a monthly amount in order to pay for the group to build the army full time. But, what if some of the islanders don't want to pitch in? Clearly the army will still be benefiting them, as it will deter the pirates from coming on to the island -- but they aren't paying. They want to freeload.

How can the AC-society deal with this without violating their core tenets?

[/ QUOTE ]
Classic free-rider problem. There are a few possibilities.

1. Enough people decide to chip in that the new army is adequate despite the existence of free-riders. This is more or less successful.

2. The army idea doesn't work out on a large scale. A few neighbors have banded together, but in general, people generally fend for themselves, defending their own property with booby traps or whatever. This is more or less successful.

3. No army is raised, and having people fend for themselves is inadequate. The pirate problem is insurmountable.

4. In several places, neighbors band together to form mini-armies. Free-loaders exist in between such bands of neighbors. The mini-armies cooperate with each other to ward off the pirates. After doing so, the mini-armies also cooperate with each other to forcibly tax the free-loaders. It's only fair. In other words, a government is formed.

I'm sure there are other possibilities as well.

You will be able to come up with hypothetical situations where it seems that AC is unlikely to work. Doing so is a successful refutation of the idea that AC would always work wherever and whenever it is tried. But most anarcho-capitalists don't necessarily hold that view. The relevant question, then, is not whether AC might work on a hypothetical pirate-infested island, but rather whether it might work in the modern U.S. (or wherever the argument is taking place).

Here is an old usenet post by David Friedman (http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/807ae352536fdd54) on the issue of what conditions might be necessary for AC to work:

<font color="blue"> Three conditions are necessary for anarcho-capitalism to be a stable and attractive system; two of them may already be satisfied:

1. There must be no public good problems whose private solution is catastrophically inadequate. The obvious candidate for such a problem is national defense. Unlike some anarchists (and Objectivists), I dont think there is a clear argument that shows one can always get adequate defense without coercing people into paying for it. When I wrote _Machinery of Freedom_, I thought that was the hardest problem, and was uncertain whether or not an anarcho-capitalist America in the setting of the U.S. c. 1970 could defend itself adequately. Since then the Soviet Union has conveniently collapsed, making national defense a much easier problem.

2. Economies of scale in law enforcement have to be small enough so that the market equilibrium produces enough enforcement agencies so that an enforcement agency cartel designed to reinvent government for its members profit is unstable. My guess is that this condition is already met.

3. One has to have a set of working anarcho-capitalist institutions that people are used to.

Requirement 3 looks like a catch-22; how can you get such institutions if you have to already have them? But the answer is that societies evolve over time.

My preferred scenario is one in which more and more government actions get privatized, whether from above (voucher initiatives would be a partial step) or from below (UPS and FedEx). As more and more legal disputes are being handled by private arbitration, and more and more law enforcement is being done privately (still with at least nominal government permission), and the government is getting more and more short of money (for a variety of reasons, possibly including the growth of on-line commerce, which is hard to monitor, hence hard to tax), people get used to the idea that if you want your rights competently defended you hire a private enforcement agency, if you want disputes settled in this decade you go to private arbitration (already true for a lot of commercial disputes), that you therefore should be unwilling to support politicians who want to spend money for things you are already paying for yourself (the current attitude of parents whose children go to private schools), ... . There are other possible scenarios, including ones relying more heavily on cyberspace and encryption a la Tim Mays ideas ... .

The basic point here is that people in general are rationally conservative. What I mean by that is that they trust the institutions they are familiar with to function the way those institutions can be seen functioning. What I want to change is not some deep philosophical attitude--unlike many Objectivists, I dont think the society I live in is philosophically rotten to the core, nor do I think there is a set of answers to philosophical and political questions which any rational person, once shown, should accept. I simply want people to get used to the institutions I am in favor of, probably a little at a time--at which point they will take them for granted the way they currently take elections and Supreme Courts and Presidents for granted. </font>

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see the point of the scenario.

Here's a scenario for you. Aliens with superior technology invade and pillage the United States, killing millions and leveling cities. Six months later the same thing happens. Does the form of the US government or the lack thereof have anything to do with this scenario?

[/ QUOTE ]

Our government is structured to supply a military defense to deal with such things. AC is not. How would the AC-islanders handle it?

[/ QUOTE ]

At every step you make unfounded assertions that assume your conclusion.

How is government structured to supply a military defense against vastly superior technology? I contend it isn't, that democracy is just as bad as monarchy, dictatorship, or for that matter, anarchocapitalism. Do you think the plains Indians stood a chance against the US Army, regardless of how they governed themselves? Did the Meso-Americans ever have a chance against the Spaniards, no matter how they governed themselves?

So essentially, your pirate scenario is utterly useless for discriminating between the private production of security and coercive production of "security." I put it in quotes since you can't really called it security when you have to be fleeced and enslaved to produce it, can you?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you are wrong. Bob would have to defend the well. Why? Because he's a human being and so is everyone else on the island. Hungry, thirsty human beings. And if Bob tries to install himself as King by ransoming water, he's probably going to be violently overthrown.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, AC doesn't advocate what you just said, though, right? According to the Non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_axiom), it is wrong to initiate force against someone or their property. (This question is in regards to Bob having the monopoly and charging whatever he wants for the water, prior to him initiating force after he secured his own power.) I just wanted to clarify that AC would not advocate using force to take someone's property, right? Even if they are not there to fight the thief off?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. Anarchocapitalism is not utopian. I am not suffering under the delusion that in an anarchocapitalist society there will be no crime, that starving people will not steal food or that people dying of thirst will not steal water, simply because it is "wrong," and "violates the principle of non-aggression."

The point is that I believe private free-market solutions to the problems of poverty, hunger, thirst, sickness, unemployment, violent aggression, settlement of disputes, and all the rest of the problems facing mankind are better than coercive centrally-planned solutions. That's the whole point of this thread. You could never centrally plan a pencil, how can you possibly centrally plan security better than the free market? Free market production of security abounds. The free market does FAR more to secure the life, liberty, and property for most people than government does, yet the tiny sliver of "protection" that the government purports to provide costs FAR MORE. That's TODAY. Shouldn't the empirical evidence count for ANYTHING?

[The Don]

My issue with the free-rider problem is that everyone will have an incentive to band against the pirates in the given geographic region. For instance, people lacking in material possessions would likely apply for employment at the defense company because the pay would be high due to the threat of imminent attack and the consequent high demand for defense. People with a lot of resources would likely be more inclined to fund these operations (probably through insurance, donations etc...) because they have a lot to lose. People in the middle might decide either. It would be highly unlikely that there would truly be many free-riders on AC-island in this scenario.

[Borodog]

The free-rider problem is a red herring in scenarios such as this. If there is a mad man murdering people in my neighborhood, and I run into him and kill him while defending myself, have my neighbors "freeloaded on my production of security" ? Am I somehow detered from defending myself because my neighbors are not helping me? Of course not. The idea is absurd.

As The Don said, everyone is incentivized to take part in the defense, and how they choose to do this will be determined voluntarily. Those who don't participate are not "freeloading" on those who do. There are even social repercussions that would deter non-participation without cercion. "Did you know that Bob didn't help fight off the pirates? [censored] him. I'm not buying his fish anymore." In terms of evolutionary stable strategies, a Tit-For-Tat strategy like this deters non-participation in cooperative behavior and incentivises voluntary participation.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
"Did you know that Bob didn't help fight off the pirates? [censored] him. I'm not buying his fish anymore."

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Frank and Phil were the fishermen...

[Borodog]

Bob diversified his investment portfolio.

[madnak]

Bob's quite the entrepreneur!

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I somehow detered from defending myself because my neighbors are not helping me?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you're deterred from defending yourself because you expect your neighbors to do it for you.

If I know that 90% of my neighbors will chip in for a defense, and I know that their effort will be sufficient, why should I join in (assuming I am totally selfish)? Whether I help pay for the defense or not, it will be provided. So why pay?

And if everyone shares my same attitude, nobody will pay, so the job won't get done. But the point is that it's not really any more likely to get done if I help than if I don't help (assuming I'm not the well-owner).

There are ways around this problem. A common one in the corporate world is the use of tender-offers. The same kind of deal could be used to finance the island-army.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our government is structured to supply a military defense to deal with such things. AC is not. How would the AC-islanders handle it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Insurance. Quite simply, because of the attacks the islanders will demand protection against future attacks. People will pay insurance relative to what they have to lose (kind of like life insurance is in present time). Competing defense companies will form mercenary armies and produce weapons (etc...) to defend AC island. Because of the recent attack, demand will be very high for defense, and these companies will likely be thriving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for dropping by again, Don. /images/graemlins/smile.gif The freeloader issue was the main problem I was getting at here, but you address that in a later post -- where the freeloaders will most likely end up working for the defense company. That makes sense. I think maurile addresses a few other options that might happen, too.

I actually like a lot of the ideas I've been reading about AC -- I'm not sure why Boro is seeming so defensive. I'm just wanting to know how this would work, so I appreciate your answers, Don. And yours too, maurile! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you are wrong. Bob would have to defend the well. Why? Because he's a human being and so is everyone else on the island. Hungry, thirsty human beings. And if Bob tries to install himself as King by ransoming water, he's probably going to be violently overthrown.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, AC doesn't advocate what you just said, though, right? According to the Non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_axiom), it is wrong to initiate force against someone or their property. (This question is in regards to Bob having the monopoly and charging whatever he wants for the water, prior to him initiating force after he secured his own power.) I just wanted to clarify that AC would not advocate using force to take someone's property, right? Even if they are not there to fight the thief off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob would be in the wrong for initiating force against Tina. His monopoly would thus be coercive (since it was forcably created) and people would have the right to overthrow his tyranny. Monopolies cannot form except through coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that scenario, it was before Bob decided to use his power to thwart competition (by force). I don't see how monopolies can't be had without coercion, though? Bob has a monopoly on the fresh water source because he owns the well. Was there coercion involved there?

[Borodog]

The only reason Bob has a monopoly on the entirety of a resource (fresh water) is because you invented a pathological scenario that doesn't occur in the real world. Can you point to an analogous real world scenario where one man controls 100% of a particular resource?

When I offered a simple and obvious solution to the competition problem you first tried to deus ex machina it away by claiming "it rarely rains." Failing that, Bob has to use coercion.

Hey, I have an idea. If there's a fresh water well on the island, that must mean there is a fresh water watertable, presumably filtered by the island soil. Timmy and Tommy dig another well. Are you going to magick that away too?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why Boro is seeming so defensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not defensive. My apologies if I came off that way. I hope you would agree that I'm answering your questions as honestly as possible.

[KipBond]

Awesome post, Maurile. Thanks. It seems that there is no "way" that AC really handles certain issues -- it just hopes that the free market will come up with a solution. But, I think there are lots of outside forces that can make it where a free market won't come up with a good solution -- or at least not very quickly.

I'm starting to read about Somalia -- on an Anarchocapitalist website I found. They have problems with security -- which is what I thought might happen -- at least in the short term.

My current thought is that if the society needs to create a government solution to a problem in order to expedite it, then it should have built in measures to make sure that it tries to be replaced by private solutions. It seems totally backwards to me that the government solution would have measures to keep private solutions from replacing it (like our mail system that I just learned about!).

I value democracy -- and I like being able to vote on things that affect all of society. Perhaps this is engrained, and not the best. That's why I'm trying to learn more on AC.

Again, thanks for taking the time to address my questions. I appreciate your thoughtful insights.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why Boro is seeming so defensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not defensive. My apologies if I came off that way. I hope you would agree that I'm answering your questions as honestly as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I was defensive. I spend a majority of my time around here being attacked for my views on government. Sometimes I see attacks where there are none.

My apologies.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If I know that 90% of my neighbors will chip in for a defense, and I know that their effort will be sufficient, why should I join in (assuming I am totally selfish)? Whether I help pay for the defense or not, it will be provided. So why pay?

And if everyone shares my same attitude, nobody will pay, so the job won't get done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if everyone shares this attitude, then 90% of your neighbors *won't* chip in, so there won't be as much security for you to freeload off of. Of course people will notice this, and many of them will change their opinion to "if nobody else is going to fund this stuff, I will have to do it myself."

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason Bob has a monopoly on the entirety of a resource (fresh water) is because you invented a pathological scenario that doesn't occur in the real world. Can you point to an analogous real world scenario where one man controls 100% of a particular resource?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess in our country, intellectual resources come to mind. Which brings up another question -- which since you don't like my scenarios, I'll just ask right out: how does AC handle intellectual property rights? If I research and find a new technology, can I patent it? Or a new cure for a disease? Or the human genome? If not, what is my incentive on doing the research, when someone will reap the benefits of my work without any of the costs?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why Boro is seeming so defensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not defensive. My apologies if I came off that way. I hope you would agree that I'm answering your questions as honestly as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I was defensive. I spend a majority of my time around here being attacked for my views on government. Sometimes I see attacks where there are none.

My apologies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understanable. Apology accepted. (Oh, and Timmy &amp; Tommy can't dig a new well, because if they do, God will smite them. /images/graemlins/wink.gif )

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I value democracy -- and I like being able to vote on things that affect all of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can vote with your dollar, your labor, and your popular support. I think anarcho-capitalism is far more democratic than most "democracies."

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I value democracy -- and I like being able to vote on things that affect all of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can vote with your dollar, your labor, and your popular support. I think anarcho-capitalism is far more democratic than most "democracies."

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like a timocracy.

[madnak]

Except that everyone owns property, and there's no government. Your influence on society is natural in AC. No central authority tries to use artificial means in order to codify and quantify it. Of course, as a result some people will have greater influence than others. But I think the distribution of influence is going to be much more even, and your influence in your own community is going to be enormous.

How much influence does the average person really have in a modern "representative democracy?"

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only reason Bob has a monopoly on the entirety of a resource (fresh water) is because you invented a pathological scenario that doesn't occur in the real world. Can you point to an analogous real world scenario where one man controls 100% of a particular resource?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess in our country, intellectual resources come to mind. Which brings up another question -- which since you don't like my scenarios, I'll just ask right out: how does AC handle intellectual property rights? If I research and find a new technology, can I patent it? Or a new cure for a disease? Or the human genome? If not, what is my incentive on doing the research, when someone will reap the benefits of my work without any of the costs?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a whole other can of worms, but I'll give you the short answer. In depth discussion would probably require a whole new thread.

The short answer is that patents are clearly a pretty bad idea and would probably not exist in a market without government. Copyright is trickier. Personally I think copyright is not logically defensible, but it still might exist for the simple reason that people really deep down believe in something like copyright. And since people would of course form the juries or arbitration panels or whatever they turn out to be that would resolve copyright disputes, they would probably exist. Because intellectual property rights do not resolve conflicts over scarce resources, like all tangible property rights, they will always be a continual source of problems, no matter the form of government or lack thereof.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
How much influence does the average person really have in a modern "representative democracy?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Practically zero. This is at the heart of Public Choice Theory. Basically it says that each voter knows that the chance his vote will affect policy in the way he wants is infinitesimally small. Yet the investment in time and effort required to learn enough about the issues and candidates in order to make an "informed decision" is large. Hence the rational decision for each voter is to stay ignorant, and indeed not even vote. It's called "rational ignorance," and it goes a long way towards explain low voter turnout. Non-voters are not all stupid slobs. They're making the rational decision. People who spend all their time arguing on the internet about things they have almost no hope of affecting (like me) are the irrational ones.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
how does AC handle intellectual property rights? If I research and find a new technology, can I patent it?

[/ QUOTE ]
AC isn't a set of substantive laws. It's a procedure for making laws (or at least "laws"). In theory, an anarcho-capitalistic society will have a competitive market for laws just like it will have a competitive market for automobiles, and the most efficient laws (and automobiles) will gain market share.

So asking about the AC position on intellectual property laws is a bit like asking about the "free market" position on four-wheel drive. There's no inherent substantive answer. The answer is that the market will come up with whatever solution works best.

There's some real debate right now about whether intellectual property laws are worthwhile -- and if they are worthwhile, what their optimal structure would be.

I don't know the answer to that, but in theory, a free legal market would be more likely to get the right answer than any legislature would.

It sounds funny to speak of a free market for laws. And I wouldn't be able to do the idea justice in a short message board post. (I wouldn't be able to do it justice in any forum, for that matter, because I'm not qualified -- but I'm especially unable to do it justice in a short message board post.)

In brief, people who support IP laws would wish to hire security companies that protect IP rights. People who don't support IP laws would wish to hire security companies that protect them from the arm of other IP-enforcing security companies.

So you write some computer software and I pirate it. You'd want to find a security company that would seek retribution from me; and I'd want to find a security company that would protect me from your security company.

What will happen, since security companies will try very hard to avoid fighting with each other (since fighting is extremely costly) is that your security company and my security company will bargain with each other on the issue of to what extent IP should be protected. And their bargaining power will be related to how much their respective customers are willing to pay to get their way on that issue. Hence a market.

In theory, this sort of market will produce an "efficient" legal outcome in the sense that the law that creates the most total value for society is the one that will prevail (since it will have the strongest support).

While AC is a procedure -- a market -- rather than a set of specific outcomes, the overall result is likely to be a very libertarian set of "laws". (I put laws in quotes because true laws are government directives. What the AC society will have is a set of bargained-for rules.)

Take drug laws as an example. Would prohibition or legalization be the likely result of a bargained-for set of rules? It seems obvious that legalization would be the likely result. Most prohibitionists are not willing to pay as much to lock a pot-smoker up as the pot-smokers would be willing to pay to remain free. A security company that tried to lock up all the pot-smokers would encounter prohibitive resistence from the security companies hired by pot-smokers to protect their liberties. So a prohibitionist security company would have especially high costs -- costs that its customers would be unwilling to pay just to make sure that pot-smokers are locked up -- and would go out of business.

The same libertarian slant is likely to be obtained in other laws as well.

Anarcho-capitalists are all quite libertarian. Because they are libertarian, they support things like very low (or preferably no) taxes, legalization of all victimless crimes, complete freedom of contract, an absence of inefficient regulations, etc. Those are their substantive positions on legal issues.

The reason they are anarcho-capitalists is because they believe that anarcho-capitalism is more likely than any other system (democracy, monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, etc.) to result in a substantively libertarian society. AC is the procedural system most likely to achieve the desired substantive results.

So back to your question . . . when you ask about intellectual property laws, you are asking about a substantive result. An anarcho-capitalist may or may not have an opinion on what substantive result would work best, and different anarcho-capitalists may disagree with each other on that. But for the most part they will agree that whatever substantive results anarcho-capitalism comes up with will be better than anything a legislature could come up with.

So the kind of answer you'd get to your question from an anarcho-capitalist might be something like: "I suspect some form of limited patent protection for at least some kinds of ideas probably makes sense, but I wouldn't be shocked if the market for IP laws proves me wrong and comes up with a better solution than anything I can think of."

[Borodog]

Will you have my baby?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Take drug laws as an example. Would prohibition or legalization be the likely result of a bargained-for set of rules? It seems obvious that legalization would be the likely result. Most prohibitionists are not willing to pay as much to lock a pot-smoker up as the pot-smokers would be willing to pay to remain free. A security company that tried to lock up all the pot-smokers would encounter prohibitive resistence from the security companies hired by pot-smokers to protect their liberties. So a prohibitionist security company would have especially high costs -- costs that its customers would be unwilling to pay just to make sure that pot-smokers are locked up -- and would go out of business.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to elaborate on this. To some people it seems absurd or "wrong" that anyone should have to pay for law enforcement. And I agree. I think it would be neat if special angels would come and implement the perfect legal system, for free. But that is not going to happen. We have to pay for every law on the books, regardless of the system we are using. The different is that in AC you know what you're paying for.

You don't end up paying more for what you have now - on the contrary, you will end up paying less. All these agreements with the law enforcement agencies and the insurance agencies and the schools and the hospitals may sound overwhelming. But they aren't. The fees are likely to be much smaller than what you pay in taxes and lost income from the government. And you get to choose how you spend them. If you don't feel the need for paved roads, you don't have to pay for them. If everyone else in your community feels the same way, then your community won't have paved roads. Why? Because your community doesn't want paved roads enough to cover the expenses. If you have dirt roads and someone wants to pave them, you have a very clear, rational, transparent choice. Is it worth paying x amount of wealth in order to have paved roads? If it isn't worth it, you won't pay. If it's worth it, you will. Very simple. And it naturally ensures that every capital-intensive project is justified with sufficient popular support.

With a government, you pay for these projects whether you like it or not. Everyone does. The government throws away scarce resources on projects that don't have support, and the result is social strife. I think the war on drugs would have much less support if people realized just how much it costs them. But the war on drugs is, to many people, some abstract form of government spending that doesn't apply to them. If they only knew what kind of social impact it had...

It's not just taxes, the entire market suffers. Poverty increases. People become more inclined to hoard instead of spend, and the market suffers even more. Fewer and fewer people are willing to take economic risks, as those risks tend to have more and more meager rewards. Capitalists become vicious and miserly because they have to in order to survive. And so they end up taking the blame, rather than the government (they have much of the "free" wealth and so they make ideal scapegoats). People become apathetic, the "generous" social contract becomes a trap that people want out of. But the rules and regulations are everywhere, there is no way to freedom. You get a lot of freeloaders because people just don't care any more, and most often effort isn't proportionate with reward anyhow. The government resorts to more and more desperate measures, it increases spending and increases spending. It increases spending in order to stimulate the market, when the spending is what has hurt the market in the first place! And then it tries to get popular support when the market begins to buckle. Guess how? By spending more and further sabotaging the market. Meanwhile people blame capitalism. There's no way out so they turn to magical utopian thinking and naturally look to the authorities to "save" them. They need someone to blame and so they form sides and start attacking one another.

This is the kind of social climate government results in. You can see it happening in every society with a government. Anarcho-capitalism is a potential solution to these specific problems. All the "problems" that seem to arise from AC are actually problems of government made more transparent by AC. That's a good thing! Most criticisms of AC amount to attacking the messenger.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
disagree. Governments are not necessarily fit. Governmental fitness would be highly culturally dependent. Since we've had government for a long time, culture has evolved to try to get along with it. With the advent of capitalism, enlightenment ideas about human liberty, and classical economics, culture has clashed with government, trying to shake it's grip (for example the American Revolution and the War Between the States). The American experiment came very close, but the culture was sitll that government was necessary, so the Articles of Confederation pretty much died in infancy, the Constitutional government only lasted 70 years before Lincoln killed it, and the far superior Confederate Constitution was forceably aborted. The problem with all three of course is the idea that government is necessary; the seeds of destruction are written between the lines.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't see government as evolutionary fit then thats the end of my point. I disagree, government like religous ideas and flu is extremely extremely difficult to eradicate.

As I say if you think it can be easily eliminated then there's no point continuing so the rest of the post assumes it is fit.

[ QUOTE ]
Why? This appears to me to be handwaving, and you simply assume your conclusion. This makes little sense. Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by satisfying customers. Why on Earth would he think it's a smart move to diversify into cercive government?

[/ QUOTE ]
Very hand-waving on my part. I'd plead that all evolutionary arguments of this type are hand-waving in nature. The general argument is:

X is evolutionary fit
X is possible
Given enough time the system will include X

Clearly government is possible so the question is about how it might arise and I attempted to give an idea. Your reply about why would Bill Gates want to do it, misses the point I think, as clearly he wouldn't, but what he does want to do is create a structure to help manage his resources.

As the resources become more diverse it becomes harder for Bill to keep track and he delegates more to the stucture. This structure will tend to become self-serving in parts unless prevented from doing so by Bill. The trouble is that Bill is mortal and the structure isn't, the owner of the structure changes hands over time and one day the owner will be a moron or find himself in need of goodwill from those who manage the structure. Gradually the stucture becomes more powerful than those who supposedly own it and onwards to government.

It is hand-waving but I stuggle to believe you've worked in any size company and not seen the way the burocracy tends to be self-serving and power hungry.

This isn't an attack btw, I'm no huge fan of government but wondering how it can be avoided in a free market. I think the biggest problem is sucession, but also the big boss going mad or the success of an individual just being too big to handle.

[ QUOTE ]
I know this will carry no weight with you, because it's an entirely different argument (well not really, just a long and winding rabbit trail), but there won't be large numbers of poor people. Unfettered capitalism makes everyone wealthy. Some just wealthier than others.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm open to this idea but even so they will also be many people who are happy to bribed by a handout from an organisation that has lots of resources. Many will be happy if they are just told they're geting a handout when in fact they're being taxed more.


chez

[KipBond]

Damn, that was awesome! /images/graemlins/smile.gif I like it. I hope Somalia or some other AC-based society will thrive, so we can all embrace it. In that article, I think it would be best to slowly take power away from the government. We should start with the mail system! /images/graemlins/smile.gif No laws should prevent private people from competing with the government (except for some things like military, nuclear weapons, and such, I suppose). /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[jthegreat]

It's not that awesome.

[ QUOTE ]
What will happen, since security companies will try very hard to avoid fighting with each other (since fighting is extremely costly) is that your security company and my security company will bargain with each other on the issue of to what extent IP should be protected. And their bargaining power will be related to how much their respective customers are willing to pay to get their way on that issue. Hence a market.

[/ QUOTE ]

As maurile says, the protection of rights comes down to who has more money. In general, the majority wins. This might not be a horrible thing with software piracy, but when people are able to hire companies to imprison people of a different race/religion/sexual orientation/etc..., it becomes a huge issue. An AC system would make it nearly impossible for relatively small minority groups to protect themselves.

[madnak]

Yeah, it's really too bad the majority of people are willing to pay in order to "keep those minorities down."

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not that awesome. ...
As maurile says, the protection of rights comes down to who has more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that sucks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif The minorities would have to fight and hope that they can cause the majorities enough hardship such that the majority doesn't think it's worth the fight. Complete anarchy! Oh... yeah. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I guess that's a pickle -- since there is no government, there are no central human rights protections. And, with AC, your insurance company might be able to protect you from getting harmed, but the only recourse if you do get harmed, is to do harm back. And harm is subjective, so this could start a big problem.

Actually, it would be a whole lot like our international relations. There is no government that controls all of the nations, so that might be a good example of how a society with no government would be. For the most part, people leave each other alone. But, every once in a while, there is turmoil and bloodshed. And if you're a big/rich person/country, you can do a whole lot of pushing around.

I know our government is bloated, and has lots of problems... and I think some of the AC ideas should be implemented in our society. Perhaps the stability and security is worth the inefficiencies and coercion?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not that awesome.

[ QUOTE ]
What will happen, since security companies will try very hard to avoid fighting with each other (since fighting is extremely costly) is that your security company and my security company will bargain with each other on the issue of to what extent IP should be protected. And their bargaining power will be related to how much their respective customers are willing to pay to get their way on that issue. Hence a market.

[/ QUOTE ]

As maurile says, the protection of rights comes down to who has more money. In general, the majority wins. This might not be a horrible thing with software piracy, but when people are able to hire companies to imprison people of a different race/religion/sexual orientation/etc..., it becomes a huge issue. An AC system would make it nearly impossible for relatively small minority groups to protect themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This completely neglects the fact that it is nearly impossible for relatively small minority groups to protect themselves in any system if the majority of the society is out to persecute them. In fact, any society with enough nuts to try to oppress a minority is going to have a government anyway, since government is the perfect tool for oppression (hey, at least it's good for something).

When you don't have government to tax everyone to pay for your crazy schemes like imprisoning people for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and you actually have to pay for it yourself, the cost will be prohibitive. Any small number of people who tried such a crazy scheme would have to pay a huge premium (if they could even find a company suicidal enough to try to enforce their scheme, which is extraordinarily unlikely), and would be overwhelmed by the majority of people paying a small premium not to be aggressed against.

The whole hypothetical is patently absurd, but j can't let go of it.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the stability and security is worth the inefficiencies and coercion?

[/ QUOTE ]

What stability and security?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the stability and security is worth the inefficiencies and coercion?

[/ QUOTE ]

What stability and security?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not perfect, but I think our government has been relatively stable (with a few notable exceptions). Compared to other countries that have numerous revolutions and societal unrest, I think the U.S. is comparatively stable and secure.

And actually... this government can be thought of as one of many companies that you can choose to support with your money. If someone didn't like it, they can move to Canada or Mexico or South America fairly easily, or even across the ocean if they knew of a better company/government/society that they'd rather do business with.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone didn't like it, they can move to Canada or Mexico or South America fairly easily, or even across the ocean if they knew of a better company/government/society that they'd rather do business with.

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows how it's NOT the same as a company. If I want to buy ice cream cones from Alice instead of Bob, I don't have to move from Bob's sphere of influence to Alice's. I just go buy stuff from Alice.

If this were truely a competitive system of countries, in the event I decided to end my relationship with Elbonia and take up with Cannuckistan, instead of me relocating, Elbonia's "borders" would change - they'd move, not me.

[madnak]

Stable relative to other states? Yeah.

Where do you think the revolutions in the third world come from? Anarchists waiting in the wings?

The government could be thought of as a company if it didn't use coercive means. The government is actually a coercive monopoly. It has no competitors, and if a competitor arises the government will eliminate them by any means necessary.

The fact that I can move away doesn't make the government any less coercive. And many people can't move away - it's not that easy or simple. But these other governments are no more competitive or less coercive than our own. It would be a matter of "out of the frying pan, into the fire."

Also the direct impact of the government on me isn't the only consideration. Every bank, business, school, and hospital is directly affected by the government. They are not free to operate as they would like. The must all operate under government rules. Property ownership is also questionable under government rule. If I have to pay taxes on my property, then it is clearly not "mine." It belongs to the government and they are charging me a fee to use it. The government can, of course, appropriate my property as it sees fit. And the government is central. It doesn't provide a service, it creates a purview over all services. Some of the individual services provided through the government aren't provided by the government at all.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone didn't like it, they can move to Canada or Mexico or South America fairly easily, or even across the ocean if they knew of a better company/government/society that they'd rather do business with.

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows how it's NOT the same as a company. If I want to buy ice cream cones from Alice instead of Bob, I don't have to move from Bob's sphere of influence to Alice's. I just go buy stuff from Alice.

If this were truely a competitive system of countries, in the event I decided to end my relationship with Elbonia and take up with Cannuckistan, instead of me relocating, Elbonia's "borders" would change - they'd move, not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you live right next to Bob's ice cream, and Alice's is 20 miles away, you'll be inconvenienced -- but if you like Alice's that much more, you'll make the drive.

Alice isn't going to move her store just for you -- but maybe if she can get more customers where you live (than she'll give up by leaving her current location), then she'll relocate.

[KipBond]

HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION

I recently purchased a new house, and one of my criteria when looking around was that the community have a homeowner's association. I like the fact that there are certain rules that everyone must agree to in order to live in that community, as long as I have a say in those rules, of course. Which, I do by voting and petitioning my neighbors to vote too. I've seen houses lose value because of stupid things neighbors do or have done or fail to do. I like having a cohesive look to the entire community, and know that the communal property (the sidewalks, parks, etc.) will be maintained by everyone pitching in an equal amount.

Isn't this like a government? Is it bad, then? Why or why not?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Stable relative to other states? Yeah.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's always Somalia. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[madnak]

I'm not sure that's anarchy. Quitting "cold turkey" is a bad idea anyhow. The withdrawals are a bitch.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION

I recently purchased a new house, and one of my criteria when looking around was that the community have a homeowner's association. I like the fact that there are certain rules that everyone must agree to in order to live in that community, as long as I have a say in those rules, of course. Which, I do by voting and petitioning my neighbors to vote too. I've seen houses lose value because of stupid things neighbors do or have done or fail to do. I like having a cohesive look to the entire community, and know that the communal property (the sidewalks, parks, etc.) will be maintained by everyone pitching in an equal amount.

Isn't this like a government? Is it bad, then? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a utopian government, one which doesn't have to use force and where everyone agrees. As long as everyone is acting voluntarily, then it is fine. Now, if the outcome of a certain vote stated that the commmunity would plant 5 pine trees on my property (to my objection), then the community would be in the wrong to forcefully alter my property aganst my will. In short, as long as everyone agrees, then it is fine, be it government or whatever.

ACers don't opposed governments per se, they oppose the use of force. Governments just happen to be the entity which have a monopoly on force. In fact, it would likely that AC would result in a panarchic system, where there would be governments that used force, as long as people agreed to be subjected to that force. On a more micro level, two people would be able to sign a contract where they could legally fight to the death. Force isn't necessarily bad as long as people agree to it.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that's anarchy. Quitting "cold turkey" is a bad idea anyhow. The withdrawals are a bitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that the mess was caused by the former government in Somalia, I don't think that their current situation is any way reflective on AC (their situation has actually been improving slowly over the past decade).

But yeah... any rapid change is almost undoubtedly going to be violent, whether it is state to state, anarchy to state, or state to anarchy.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION

I recently purchased a new house, and one of my criteria when looking around was that the community have a homeowner's association. I like the fact that there are certain rules that everyone must agree to in order to live in that community, as long as I have a say in those rules, of course. Which, I do by voting and petitioning my neighbors to vote too. I've seen houses lose value because of stupid things neighbors do or have done or fail to do. I like having a cohesive look to the entire community, and know that the communal property (the sidewalks, parks, etc.) will be maintained by everyone pitching in an equal amount.

Isn't this like a government? Is it bad, then? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a utopian government, one which doesn't have to use force and where everyone agrees. As long as everyone is acting voluntarily, then it is fine. Now, if the outcome of a certain vote stated that the commmunity would plant 5 pine trees on my property (to my objection), then the community would be in the wrong to forcefully alter my property aganst my will. In short, as long as everyone agrees, then it is fine, be it government or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

This HOA can force you to change your property, or change it for you if you refuse and seize your property if you fail to pay for the work that was done. Coercion, for sure.

But, it's something we all agreed to. We know we can't put up statues in our front yard without approval. We can't paint our house pink without approval. We can't build our own radio station on our roof without approval. (And, these things would be denied, by the way.)

So, if someone wanted to do those things that the HOA prohibits, they will have to move. This is similar to having to move to another country if you don't want to follow the rules. Yes, I agree that it's easier to move to another housing community than to another country -- but the similarity is there.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
And you are wrong. Bob would have to defend the well. Why? Because he's a human being and so is everyone else on the island. Hungry, thirsty human beings. And if Bob tries to install himself as King by ransoming water, he's probably going to be violently overthrown.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are these people justified in not respecting property rights? I just want you go be on record as stating that at a certain point of inequality people are allowed to disregard property rights.

[Borodog]

It's not a question of "allowed."

[The Don]

If the individual whom I bought the property from made me sign a contract saying that 'I must follow all of the rules and subject myself to the vote of the HOA' then, yes, it would be enforcable. It is highly unlikely that he would do this, though, because he would be costing himself value on the house by forcing the agreement. Basically, governments don't have legitimacy just because they are they are there, they have it because the people consent.

Also, this is fundamentally different than the status quo because you or I never signed the US Constitution. It would be the same thing if a child grew up in the HOA community and inhereted the house.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
If the individual whom I bought the property from made me sign a contract saying that 'I must follow all of the rules and subject myself to the vote of the HOA' then, yes, it would be enforcable. It is highly unlikely that he would do this, though, because he would be costing himself value on the house by forcing the agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly how it happened. I had to sign an HOA agreement as part of the contract in buying the house. It was a huge packet, actually. And part of the contract says that they can make me undo something I do to my property if it is not approved, or else they will do it for me and charge me. If I do not pay, they can seize my property to pay for it.

Everyone in the community has to sign the same HOA contract -- else it would defeat the purpose. And, I wanted this. Not because I like not being able to make my own choices about what to do with my own property -- but because I'd rather give up a bit of freedom of choice to ensure that some schmuck doesn't kill my property value.

And around here, most housing communities have HOAs -- you have to go to the crappy neighborhoods usually to not be in one. So, those are your options: crappy neighborhood where you can put a radio tower on your roof and paint your house pink, or a nice neighborhood where you can't.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Coercion, for sure.

But, it's something we all agreed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You contradict yourself. People put themselves voluntarily into all sorts of contracts that commit them to certain uses (or non-uses) of their property in exchange for other things. In this case, a homeowner's association is merely an agreement among property owners not to do certain things in exchange for certain behaviors by their neighbors. *entering into the agreement* is not coercive. You agree to the HOA as a condition of the act of sale of the house in most cases. This is completely different than conditions imposed on someone outside of any transactional agreement.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coercion, for sure.

But, it's something we all agreed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You contradict yourself. People put themselves voluntarily into all sorts of contracts that commit them to certain uses (or non-uses) of their property in exchange for other things. In this case, a homeowner's association is merely an agreement among property owners not to do certain things in exchange for certain behaviors by their neighbors. *entering into the agreement* is not coercive. You agree to the HOA as a condition of the act of sale of the house in most cases. This is completely different than conditions imposed on someone outside of any transactional agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless like Don mentioned, my house is inherited by my heirs. They don't sign the HOA agreement, and now they own the property, but they have to abide by the HOA rules as well as pay the annual dues.

This would be like being born into the country where you have to abide by the rules and pay taxes. You can sell the house to divorce yourself from the HOA (which might make you lose money in the transaction) -- and you can leave the country in which you were born.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coercion, for sure.

But, it's something we all agreed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You contradict yourself. People put themselves voluntarily into all sorts of contracts that commit them to certain uses (or non-uses) of their property in exchange for other things. In this case, a homeowner's association is merely an agreement among property owners not to do certain things in exchange for certain behaviors by their neighbors. *entering into the agreement* is not coercive. You agree to the HOA as a condition of the act of sale of the house in most cases. This is completely different than conditions imposed on someone outside of any transactional agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless like Don mentioned, my house is inherited by my heirs. They don't sign the HOA agreement, and now they own the property, but they have to abide by the HOA rules as well as pay the annual dues.

This would be like being born into the country where you have to abide by the rules and pay taxes. You can sell the house to divorce yourself from the HOA (which might make you lose money in the transaction) -- and you can leave the country in which you were born.

[/ QUOTE ]
The inheritance thing looks like a red herring. The rules that govern the property are part of the property and are inherited with it. Thats true if its about a party wall, communal heating and any other agreements about use.

chez

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless like Don mentioned, my house is inherited by my heirs. They don't sign the HOA agreement, and now they own the property, but they have to abide by the HOA rules as well as pay the annual dues.

This would be like being born into the country where you have to abide by the rules and pay taxes. You can sell the house to divorce yourself from the HOA (which might make you lose money in the transaction) -- and you can leave the country in which you were born.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inheritance thing looks like a red herring. The rules that govern the property are part of the property and are inherited with it. Thats true if its about a party wall, communal heating and any other agreements about use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I don't know about the particulars, but I would be surprised if you could get around such rules by merely inheriting the property. Can you avoid condo maintance fees by inheriting the property?

This isn't at all the same as having a (social) contract forced upon you by being born into a certain country, because you can elect to decline an inheritance, and to do so you don't have to physically relocate.

The "you can move if you don't like it" argument is authoritarian. Gardeners don't get geographical monopolies - I can fire the kid that cuts my grass and hire a new one without moving - why should government get the privelege of making *me* move if I disagree with their activities?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless like Don mentioned, my house is inherited by my heirs. They don't sign the HOA agreement, and now they own the property, but they have to abide by the HOA rules as well as pay the annual dues.

This would be like being born into the country where you have to abide by the rules and pay taxes. You can sell the house to divorce yourself from the HOA (which might make you lose money in the transaction) -- and you can leave the country in which you were born.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inheritance thing looks like a red herring. The rules that govern the property are part of the property and are inherited with it. Thats true if its about a party wall, communal heating and any other agreements about use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I don't know about the particulars, but I would be surprised if you could get around such rules by merely inheriting the property. Can you avoid condo maintance fees by inheriting the property?

This isn't at all the same as having a (social) contract forced upon you by being born into a certain country, because you can elect to decline an inheritance, and to do so you don't have to physically relocate.

The "you can move if you don't like it" argument is authoritarian. Gardeners don't get geographical monopolies - I can fire the kid that cuts my grass and hire a new one without moving - why should government get the privelege of making *me* move if I disagree with their activities?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the idea of 'move if you don't like it' is just silly. However I cant see how realising this helps anyone, whatever the system, some people will not like it, changing the system wont change that.

Can anyone realistically make an objective argument that their system will be disliked minimally?

chez

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone realistically make an objective argument that their system will be disliked minimally?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't recall who it was, but a 19th century political economist/philosopher noted that under laiseez faire, all other systems may be tried, but under no other system may laissez faire be tried.

[cov47]

I think drawing a firm line between "state" and whatever power structures we get in AC is a bit misleading. Assuming one day that true AC somehow is magically summoned into being, I think it would start looking a lot like a state pretty quickly. Businesses aren't coercive now only because the state assumes the responsibility for jailing criminals. If I murder someone in ACland, I certainly expect that some private security company will imprison me, whether I signed a contract authorizing that action or not.

I also don't think you can really answer the concern about public benefits in an AC system. A free market doesn't always benefit the consumer, and sometimes it's totally untenable. Imaginary ACland experiments follow.

If I live in a house in a town, I'm going to need the things that connect my house to the rest of the world. I will need roads so I can go places. I might want electricity, or running water, or internet access. I can't afford to build and maintain the facilities that supply me with these necessities on my own.

In some cases it might be easy to monitor who uses how much of something. But how much of the road maintenance belongs to me? Should I just own the portion in front of my house, and pay out of pocket if a pothole develops? What if I'd prefer just to let my piece of road rot away? Do I deserve to pay anything for the increased cost of maintenance I inflict on someone else's road when I drive on them? How about the cost of my friends driving to my house to see me, or the trucks that deliver my food to the supermarket across the street?

No, I think what I need here is a local govern- no, I mean a local "business" to maintain all the roads in town. Everybody benefits from the roads, so I don't want anyone opting out. If anyone wants to live in my town, I think they should have to pay for the roads. If they don't want to pay for the infrastructure that they so plainly depend on, I think we should either confiscate an appropriate amount of their money or force them to move someplace else.

The more I think about it, maybe just looking at my own town isn't enough. I like to eat food. Sometimes I need medicine. I'm not sure I trust the same businesses that sell me these products to ensure their quality and safety. So maybe I could use some sort of watchdog agenc- no, I mean business, to look out for me.

Come to think of it, I don't need a whole lot of businesses like this. It seems kind of silly to have one business certify the freshness of my broccoli while another looks after the mushrooms. And if there are too many businesses fulfilling this watchdog role, I won't be able to remember whether this particular company who claims my tuna is mercury free has a good reputation or not. No, what I could use here is a really BIG company, that ensures the safety of all the food I might buy. You know what, I think it would just be best if everyone just paid for this really big company, too. There might be a few people who never eat peanuts, or never eat anything really, but wouldn't it be more convenient if everyone just paid their ten bucks a year for this service?

I know ACland is the happiest and most economically advanced place on earth. Perhaps other lesser nations may become jealous of our affluence and enlightened liberalism. Sure, I've got a 1/12,500 share in Bob's Security (everyone in town does!). Bob does a good job keeping the thugs off the corner, but I'm not sure how he'll do against a platoon of tanks.

Then again, the odds of a tank invasion do seem slim. It would be kind of ridiculous to fill an entire barracks with soldiers on the off chance Kim Jong-Il is feeling particularly belligerent towards my town. What I could use is a powerful, mobile security detail. We'll set up bases, strategically located throughout ACland. We'll give them the authority to fly around over ACland and check for trouble. That way, we can spend just enough to make sure my town is protected, along with every other town in ACland. Now we have an economy of scale. Think of the money we'll save!

I'd think we really only need one security firm to help us with this project. After all, it would seem kind of silly to see all the tanks from the unlucky security firm who doesn't get our contract sitting mothballed when the Koreans invade. Now it goes without saying, I'd like everyone in ACland to help me pay for this. It occurs to me that in the heat of battle, our security forces may be hamstrung by the need to conduct interviews to determine which people and buildings they should protect.

So I guess there are at least some services that could best be provided by a centralized authority at some level. And I guess I feel that these authorities should be blessed with the power to inflict taxati- err, monthly billing, upon us.

Maybe sometimes monopolies are ok. Although when it comes to some consumer goods, I really wish I had some other options. Of course you remember back in 2011 when the justice system that enforced our anti-trust laws was finally dissolved. Three weeks later, Microsoftintelcitigroup bought the rights to every piece of binary code in ACland. Internet explorer 7 is a piece of [censored].

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I think what I need here is a local govern- no, I mean a local "business" to maintain all the roads in town. Everybody benefits from the roads, so I don't want anyone opting out. If anyone wants to live in my town, I think they should have to pay for the roads. If they don't want to pay for the infrastructure that they so plainly depend on, I think we should either confiscate an appropriate amount of their money or force them to move someplace else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: since our monopoly road maintenance is so crappy, nobody thinks the fees we charge are really worth what they get in return, so we have to steal from the people to get the money out of them. How magnanimous of you to decree for me that I benefit.

If your government doesn't like me not paying, why don't they go somewhere else and leave me alone? Where does government get rights to trump my property rights?

If you are getting wedgies at school, should you have to move to another school? Might makes right?

[ QUOTE ]
The more I think about it, maybe just looking at my own town isn't enough. I like to eat food. Sometimes I need medicine. I'm not sure I trust the same businesses that sell me these products to ensure their quality and safety. So maybe I could use some sort of watchdog agenc- no, I mean business, to look out for me.

Come to think of it, I don't need a whole lot of businesses like this. It seems kind of silly to have one business certify the freshness of my broccoli while another looks after the mushrooms. And if there are too many businesses fulfilling this watchdog role, I won't be able to remember whether this particular company who claims my tuna is mercury free has a good reputation or not. No, what I could use here is a really BIG company, that ensures the safety of all the food I might buy. You know what, I think it would just be best if everyone just paid for this really big company, too. There might be a few people who never eat peanuts, or never eat anything really, but wouldn't it be more convenient if everyone just paid their ten bucks a year for this service?

[/ QUOTE ]

While we're at it, I've noticed that there are just way too many choices out there when it comes to food anyway. Let's just reduce everything to white bread, bologna, and yellow mustard. Isn't that much more convenient?

John Kerry thinks like you do, btw:

[ QUOTE ]
"...when they give you the menu, I'm always struggling: Ah, what do you
want?

"He just gives you what he's got, right?" Mr. Kerry added, continuing
steadily off a gangplank of his own making: "And you don't have to
worry, it's whatever he's cooked up that day. And I think that's the way
it ought to work, for confused people like me who can't make up our minds."

[/ QUOTE ]

[cite: NY Times] (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/trail/06TRAIL-MALAPROP.html?ex=1252296000&amp;en=aeeccbb0b41dc233&amp;ei =5090&amp;partner=rssuserland)

By the way, your "BIG" agency that is checking for mercury in your fish is doing a [censored] job [cite: Public Radio] (http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=06-P13-00002). Too bad you put all your eggs in one basket.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe sometimes monopolies are ok. Although when it comes to some consumer goods, I really wish I had some other options.

[/ QUOTE ]

You lie. You just said you don't want other options when it comes to roads, utilities, consumer watchdog information. Those are all consumer goods - things you want to consume.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you remember back in 2011 when the justice system that enforced our anti-trust laws was finally dissolved. Three weeks later, Microsoftintelcitigroup bought the rights to every piece of binary code in ACland. Internet explorer 7 is a piece of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, another falacy - the idea that elimination of competitors is the same as elimination of competition.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the idea of 'move if you don't like it' is just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not silly at all. It's not always practical, and perhaps trying to change the system is a better choice for some people, but leaving is not at all silly. People move out of the countries they don't like all the time. You think they are silly for doing so? That's absurd. I've thought about moving out of the U.S. on several occassions -- and I'm glad I have the right to do that. It's always an option -- and not a silly one.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the idea of 'move if you don't like it' is just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not silly at all. It's not practical, and perhaps trying to change the system is a better choice for some people, but leaving is not at all silly. People move out of the countries they don't like all the time. You think they are silly for doing so? That's absurd. I've thought about moving out of the U.S. on several occassions -- and I'm glad I have the right to do that. It's always an option -- and not a silly one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Moving isn't silly, the argument that some system is okay because you can move if you don't like it is silly?

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the idea of 'move if you don't like it' is just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not silly at all. It's not practical, and perhaps trying to change the system is a better choice for some people, but leaving is not at all silly. People move out of the countries they don't like all the time. You think they are silly for doing so? That's absurd. I've thought about moving out of the U.S. on several occassions -- and I'm glad I have the right to do that. It's always an option -- and not a silly one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Moving isn't silly, the argument that some system is okay because you can move if you don't like it is silly?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to say the system is "okay" -- but any system is not going to satisify everyone -- so having the option to move and choose a system that you like better is a good option to have. I really like this area where I'm living -- but if I don't want the HOA dues and rules, then my options are limited: move or suck it up. I can try to change the system, but unless most people agree with me that it needs to be changed, it won't be changed, and I'll be wasting my time trying to change it. Perhaps moving is the best option. It doesn't mean the HOA system is "okay" -- since for me it might not be. But, it seems to be "okay" for those that prefer it to the alternatives.

True, we don't get to decide where to be born, or the systems those places use -- but our options are to try to change it, or if we feel this is not a practical goal, then we can move.

[cov47]

[ QUOTE ]
Translation: since our monopoly road maintenance is so crappy, nobody thinks the fees we charge are really worth what they get in return, so we have to steal from the people to get the money out of them. How magnanimous of you to decree for me that I benefit.

If your government doesn't like me not paying, why don't they go somewhere else and leave me alone? Where does government get rights to trump my property rights?

If you are getting wedgies at school, should you have to move to another school? Might makes right?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that generally advocates of AC suggest (and/or argue explicitly) that everyone should only have to pay for the services they use. Since I don't think there's any reasonable way we can quantify how much of the road building/maintenance costs should be allocated to you, that doesn't work. We could just not bother with roads. We could hope that someone builds and maintains them for us to use out of charity and allows us to freeload. But I'd argue that a more reasonable solution is just to compel everyone in town to pay a small fee for road construction and maintenance, since everyone benefits from the roads.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe sometimes monopolies are ok. Although when it comes to some consumer goods, I really wish I had some other options.

[/ QUOTE ] You lie. You just said you don't want other options when it comes to roads, utilities, consumer watchdog information. Those are all consumer goods - things you want to consume.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read what I typed again; you're either not seeing the words "some" and "sometimes" or you're choosing to ignore them. Is it really that unreasonable that a person, a market or, gasp, a state, might decide that a monopoly is an effective delivery system for one good or service, but not another?

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, another falacy - the idea that elimination of competitors is the same as elimination of competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

The elimination of all competitors would eliminate competition, at least temporarily. Whether a particular monopolist could permanently squelch all competition is a question with a lot of parameters. In any case, my point is that letting the free market loose is not a guarantee of eternal competition. As I've said, there are certainly situations where as a consumer I would find a monopoly a desirable supplier for my needs, but there would be others where I would not.

I think in the final analysis ACland turns into a place where there will arise:

a) at least one security/paramilitary/judicial authority with the power to make/interpret laws, and take my property or imprison me if I do not comply
b) a number of necessary local/municipal/regional/national public works vendors who will be forced to coerce at least some into buying their "product"
c) a number of motivated corporations who will crush all competitors in their sector, and very little hope of a regulatory authority to prevent this when it is undesirable for the consumer

Do you disagree with these premises? I will say now if you don't accept a) or b) above, the place you have in mind is no place I want to live. If you accept them, I think you'll find this resembles the modern state. The only difference, I would argue, is that the consumer in AC may eventually discover he has less protection from undesired monopolism. This seems to me an unfortunate outcome if freedom of choice and freedom from coercion is what motivates AC in the first place.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that generally advocates of AC suggest (and/or argue explicitly) that everyone should only have to pay for the services they use. Since I don't think there's any reasonable way we can quantify how much of the road building/maintenance costs should be allocated to you, that doesn't work. We could just not bother with roads. We could hope that someone builds and maintains them for us to use out of charity and allows us to freeload. But I'd argue that a more reasonable solution is just to compel everyone in town to pay a small fee for road construction and maintenance, since everyone benefits from the roads.

[/ QUOTE ]

You present a false dichotomy. There are ways of paying for roads other than taxes. You just can't think of any.

How much of the building and maintenance costs of the nearest mall should be allocated to you? It's hard to tell, but somehow, the mall gets built, and not out of charity.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe sometimes monopolies are ok. Although when it comes to some consumer goods, I really wish I had some other options.

[/ QUOTE ] You lie. You just said you don't want other options when it comes to roads, utilities, consumer watchdog information. Those are all consumer goods - things you want to consume.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read what I typed again; you're either not seeing the words "some" and "sometimes" or you're choosing to ignore them. Is it really that unreasonable that a person, a market or, gasp, a state, might decide that a monopoly is an effective delivery system for one good or service, but not another?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is unreasonable, because monopolies are *not* effective. People and markets *never* "decide" that monopolies are more effective than competition, only governments - and governments have much different priorities.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, another falacy - the idea that elimination of competitors is the same as elimination of competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

The elimination of all competitors would eliminate competition, at least temporarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. There is nothing stopping other competitors from entering the market.

Standard oil attempted to corner the market on refineries much in the way you describe, by buying all of their competitors. It didn't work, because new ones kept springing up (many built out of the express hope that they would be bought out). Eventually Rockefeller had to lobby for "safety" standards for refineries to create a high barrier to entry. The monopoly wasn't achievable until government stepped in.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether a particular monopolist could permanently squelch all competition is a question with a lot of parameters.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. There is one, and only one, parameter: is the government interfering?

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, my point is that letting the free market loose is not a guarantee of eternal competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a guarantee of eternal competitors, but any intereference with the free market only reduces the amount of competition, and the chance of competitors entering.

[ QUOTE ]
As I've said, there are certainly situations where as a consumer I would find a monopoly a desirable supplier for my needs, but there would be others where I would not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you assume everyone else shares your preferences?

[ QUOTE ]
I think in the final analysis ACland turns into a place where there will arise:

a) at least one security/paramilitary/judicial authority with the power to make/interpret laws, and take my property or imprison me if I do not comply

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. The wording you use implies that they have no accountability for the laws they make. The market for security and justice will dictate what laws are efficient and which are not. Ultimately the consumer of security decides which laws he pays for his security service to enforce on his own property.

[ QUOTE ]
b) a number of necessary local/municipal/regional/national public works vendors who will be forced to coerce at least some into buying their "product"

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. "forced to coerce"??

[ QUOTE ]
c) a number of motivated corporations who will crush all competitors in their sector, and very little hope of a regulatory authority to prevent this when it is undesirable for the consumer

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to see motivated corporations crush their competitors. The only way to do that in a free market is by increasing efficiency and benefitting me, the consumer. How could that possibly be undesirable?

[ QUOTE ]
I will say now if you don't accept a) or b) above, the place you have in mind is no place I want to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want to live somewhere that an agency can make arbitrary laws and imprison you for not complying, and where an agency can force you to buy something you don't want? OK.

[ QUOTE ]
If you accept them, I think you'll find this resembles the modern state. The only difference, I would argue, is that the consumer in AC may eventually discover he has less protection from undesired monopolism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Monopoly is only possible with government intervention.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I don't think there's any reasonable way we can quantify how much of the road building/maintenance costs should be allocated to you, that doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Argumentum ad ignorantium. Bring in the Government of the Gaps.

[cov47]

[ QUOTE ]
You present a false dichotomy. There are ways of paying for roads other than taxes. You just can't think of any.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's incumbent on you to provide an alternative to taxation, if you're trying to convince someone that the alternative is superior. We can apportion the costs however you like, but show me the utility for the consumer. Are you saving me time, or money, or effort? Are you providing a better product? Is your solution somehow simpler or more equitable?

[ QUOTE ]
Standard oil attempted to corner the market on refineries much in the way you describe, by buying all of their competitors. It didn't work, because new ones kept springing up (many built out of the express hope that they would be bought out). Eventually Rockefeller had to lobby for "safety" standards for refineries to create a high barrier to entry. The monopoly wasn't achievable until government stepped in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't a similar scenario develop in ACland? Can't AC Rockefeller argue for "safety standards" too? Surely there will still be laws regarding business practices. Rockefeller has at least as much opportunity to manipulate these laws as he does under a more traditional government. He just needs to pay what the market requires for the enforcement he desires. Lobbying, without the hard work.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I've said, there are certainly situations where as a consumer I would find a monopoly a desirable supplier for my needs, but there would be others where I would not.

[/ QUOTE ]So you assume everyone else shares your preferences?

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't think everyone agrees. Then again, I don't frequently hear cries of "anarchocapitalism now!" as I walk down the street. I think it's reasonable to suggest that the majority of people accept government as necessary.

[ QUOTE ]
I like to see motivated corporations crush their competitors. The only way to do that in a free market is by increasing efficiency and benefitting me, the consumer. How could that possibly be undesirable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you're familiar with the old railroad baron tactic of slashing prices until your weaker competitors falter, then buying whatever remains of their assets? Afterwards, you can let the poor monopolized public recoup your losses (and then some) by raising your prices again.

Competition is frequently good for the consumer, yes. But a corporation is a device created to make money, not a device created to give competition to the consumer. For the corporation, competition is an obstacle, to be removed if possible. Assuming the nature of the industry in question, or the activities of the corporation in question, are successful at providing an effective barrier to entry, competition will wither and die.

[ QUOTE ]
So you want to live somewhere that an agency can make arbitrary laws and imprison you for not complying, and where an agency can force you to buy something you don't want? OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not to live in a place where a criminal must give his assent to be punished for his crime. One way or another, laws will get made, and they will get enforced.

"Arbitrary" can mean a lot of things. If you're asking if I think the laws of ACland would be reasonable and principled, the answer is: mostly. Most times, I'll think the process is fair, and most times, I'll agree with the results of the process. Surely there will be laws I don't like. But I would still expect them to be enforced regardless of my opinion. This is no different than my opinion of current American law.

As for being forced to pay for things I don't want, of course I don't like that. But I'm more concerned with the things that I want that I don't want to pay for. It's not rational for me to pay for something if I can just let someone else pay for it. Even if I take the principled stand and offer my money to the project anyway, I don't necessarily believe that others will. I fear this issue is going to be insurmountable for at least some services in ACland.

[cov47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since I don't think there's any reasonable way we can quantify how much of the road building/maintenance costs should be allocated to you, that doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Argumentum ad ignorantium. Bring in the Government of the Gaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the year 2084, God will come to us and transport us to our new home on Mars. Don't ask me how. I don't know how. God can do anything. His complexity is far too enormous for me, you, or anyone else, to understand. So it's not even fair to ask me to envision how God will accomplish this.

What, you are skeptical? Fine, stick to your Study of the Rocket Ships.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's incumbent on you to provide an alternative to taxation, if you're trying to convince someone that the alternative is superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't propose "an" alternative. I propose to let people decide on their own what alternatives are superior, through market action. I make no arrogant assumptions of their preferences or of what is or is not superior.

[ QUOTE ]
We can apportion the costs however you like, but show me the utility for the consumer. Are you saving me time, or money, or effort? Are you providing a better product? Is your solution somehow simpler or more equitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your questions show that you cannot think outside of a command economy mindset. *I* am not going to show you any utility. *I* am not going to save you time, money or effort. Everyone makes their own decision. How can that *not* be "more equitable"?

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't a similar scenario develop in ACland? Can't AC Rockefeller argue for "safety standards" too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but they can't coerce anyone else to follow them.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely there will still be laws regarding business practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. The same laws that apply to individuals would apply to businesses (since businesses are owned by and made up of individuals) - namely, don't kill, don't steal.

[ QUOTE ]
Rockefeller has at least as much opportunity to manipulate these laws as he does under a more traditional government. He just needs to pay what the market requires for the enforcement he desires. Lobbying, without the hard work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. He can't *effectively* manipulate the laws because the market will reject bogus laws. He has no authority to force his preferential laws on everyone else, so his manipulations have no impact.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I've said, there are certainly situations where as a consumer I would find a monopoly a desirable supplier for my needs, but there would be others where I would not.

[/ QUOTE ]So you assume everyone else shares your preferences?

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't think everyone agrees. Then again, I don't frequently hear cries of "anarchocapitalism now!" as I walk down the street. I think it's reasonable to suggest that the majority of people accept government as necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "majority" is not "everyone".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like to see motivated corporations crush their competitors. The only way to do that in a free market is by increasing efficiency and benefitting me, the consumer. How could that possibly be undesirable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you're familiar with the old railroad baron tactic of slashing prices until your weaker competitors falter, then buying whatever remains of their assets? Afterwards, you can let the poor monopolized public recoup your losses (and then some) by raising your prices again.

[/ QUOTE ]

At which point the "monopolist" (in reality, merely a successful competitor) creates a market opportunity, and additional competitors pop up. What you're forgetting is that robber barrons were mercantilists, not capitalists, and *depended* on government authority as part of their buisness plans (to keep the new competitors out).

[ QUOTE ]
Competition is frequently good for the consumer, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just "frequently"? When is it *not* good for consumers?

[ QUOTE ]
But a corporation is a device created to make money, not a device created to give competition to the consumer. For the corporation, competition is an obstacle, to be removed if possible. Assuming the nature of the industry in question, or the activities of the corporation in question, are successful at providing an effective barrier to entry, competition will wither and die.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do corporations erect unfair barriers to entry without governments? Can you provide any examples?

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm more concerned with the things that I want that I don't want to pay for. It's not rational for me to pay for something if I can just let someone else pay for it. Even if I take the principled stand and offer my money to the project anyway, I don't necessarily believe that others will. I fear this issue is going to be insurmountable for at least some services in ACland.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ones? I agree, it's not rational to pay for something if you can just let someone else pay for it, but I don't see why freeloaders are going to be a problem in cases that they are not a problem currently under a government.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since I don't think there's any reasonable way we can quantify how much of the road building/maintenance costs should be allocated to you, that doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Argumentum ad ignorantium. Bring in the Government of the Gaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the year 2084, God will come to us and transport us to our new home on Mars. Don't ask me how. I don't know how. God can do anything. His complexity is far too enormous for me, you, or anyone else, to understand. So it's not even fair to ask me to envision how God will accomplish this.

What, you are skeptical? Fine, stick to your Study of the Rocket Ships.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. You argue that you can't figure out how something will work, so therefore it can't work, then someone points this out, and you cleverly counter with a sarcastic example where you argue that you can't figure out how something will work, but that it *must* work.

I agree with the sarcastic point that you're making - that the argument that "I can't explain this, but trust me, it will work" is not a convincing arugment, but this in no way *improves* your case for the "I can't figure out how this will work, therefore it must be impossible" argument.

Do you see why?

[cov47]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't propose "an" alternative. I propose to let people decide on their own what alternatives are superior, through market action. I make no arrogant assumptions of their preferences or of what is or is not superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

If taxation is impossible, might the market arrive only at alternative solutions that are more costly than taxation for some individuals, or even all individuals? If the idea of paying for things you do not use is unbearable, logically we must construct a method for determining who used what. If the cost of implementing this method is $X, each individual must pay his share of X, as well as whatever his use of the road actually costs. If the value of X is too high, the real cost of roads will be higher than it was with taxation.

I guess I don't believe that since the market COULD create some alternative to taxation, it would NECESSARILY be better. In fact for the scenario of roads, I personally think the alternatives are likely worse. You are correct to say that I am unable to prove this. All I can tell you is I think X is large in the above case. If you think that this simply reflects a lack of free thinking/intelligence/creativity on my part, there's not much I can say to dissuade you.

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. The same laws that apply to individuals would apply to businesses (since businesses are owned by and made up of individuals) - namely, don't kill, don't steal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think these are the only laws that will exist? I think laws that restrict your use of your own property will arise very quickly. I would prefer my neighbor not build a chemical weapons plant or a paper mill or a whorehouse next door, but it's his property. Now what? I would support rules against those things, and if I cared enough, I would join together with like-minded folks and pay the cost of enforcing those rules.

Assuming that this process is possible, there's no reason businesses can't work (alone or together) to accomplish similar things. They could certainly attempt to pass and enforce laws which expressly limit their competitor's ability to compete. These laws might be contrary to the spirit of "do whatever you want with what is yours, just don't kill or steal," but that is not proof that they would not be supported.

[ QUOTE ]
He can't *effectively* manipulate the laws because the market will reject bogus laws. He has no authority to force his preferential laws on everyone else, so his manipulations have no impact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'd think he'd have exactly as much authority as he is willing to buy. If AC Rockefeller wants to pass and enforce a self-serving law, who is it that will oppose the law? "The market" is just a bunch of people acting in their own self-interest (or at least, what they perceive to be their own self-interest.) Who is it that will actually spend capital to block Rockefeller's machinations? His weaker competitors certainly would, but I'd think most people are going to be pretty indifferent.

[ QUOTE ]
How do corporations erect unfair barriers to entry without governments? Can you provide any examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

This presupposes that I can give you a real-world example of a place that has corporations but does not have government. Otherwise you can simply say that since the government has the final coercive authority, the corporation didn't really erect the barrier. If there is/was such a place, I do not know enough about it to reply with an example - but I don't think this really helps your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Which ones? I agree, it's not rational to pay for something if you can just let someone else pay for it, but I don't see why freeloaders are going to be a problem in cases that they are not a problem currently under a government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've given several examples. National defense, roads, consumer protection, etc. You might add environmental concerns. Who owns air and water? If someone owns them, what enterprising gentleman will be the first to charge me to breathe his air? If nobody owns them, who can profit from them? How will we ensure that everyone is a willing participant (and a willing payor) in keeping our air clean?

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. You argue that you can't figure out how something will work, so therefore it can't work, then someone points this out, and you cleverly counter with a sarcastic example where you argue that you can't figure out how something will work, but that it *must* work.

I agree with the sarcastic point that you're making - that the argument that "I can't explain this, but trust me, it will work" is not a convincing arugment, but this in no way *improves* your case for the "I can't figure out how this will work, therefore it must be impossible" argument.

Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that "I don't see how this can work, so it can't" is not a proof. It was not intended as a proof, but when clipped out of a post and taken out of context, it looks that way. When I originally said that, it was in a list of alternatives that I'd consider worse than taxation. I've attempted to explicate my position on why this might be so more clearly above.

The fundamental difference between the way I'm presenting that argument and my mock argument about rocket ships to Mars is that I permit you to present evidence that I am wrong. If I say to you "94 is a prime number, because I can't conceive of any way it can be factored," you can simply reply "47 x 2 = 94." I will be forced to agree.

On the other hand, I can't see how anyone can propose an argument to someone who says "I believe in a force so powerful that nobody can comprehend it. That force will solve this problem."

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If taxation is impossible, might the market arrive only at alternative solutions that are more costly than taxation for some individuals, or even all individuals? If the idea of paying for things you do not use is unbearable, logically we must construct a method for determining who used what. If the cost of implementing this method is $X, each individual must pay his share of X, as well as whatever his use of the road actually costs. If the value of X is too high, the real cost of roads will be higher than it was with taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean? Nothing is "unbearable." There's no guarantee in AC that you won't pay for something you don't use. There's no guarantee of anything. It is possible that you won't have to pay for anything you don't use, but this wouldn't be part of a convoluted regulatory structure.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't believe that since the market COULD create some alternative to taxation, it would NECESSARILY be better. In fact for the scenario of roads, I personally think the alternatives are likely worse. You are correct to say that I am unable to prove this. All I can tell you is I think X is large in the above case. If you think that this simply reflects a lack of free thinking/intelligence/creativity on my part, there's not much I can say to dissuade you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand the premise well. If a road project isn't economical, it won't happen. The market won't support it. And if X is large, then I won't pay for X. If a road project is inefficient, then nobody will pay for it. Obviously it's not perfect - maybe company A is slightly better at building roads than company B, but company B has better marketing. But if company B is really terrible at making roads, people will choose company A. Also the marketing staff at company B will have incentive to work for company A instead. The mechanisms for ensuring efficiency and value are the basis of the market itself.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think these are the only laws that will exist? I think laws that restrict your use of your own property will arise very quickly. I would prefer my neighbor not build a chemical weapons plant or a paper mill or a whorehouse next door, but it's his property. Now what? I would support rules against those things, and if I cared enough, I would join together with like-minded folks and pay the cost of enforcing those rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you would. That's very easy to say. How much would you pay? $1,000? $10,000? $100,000? You could probably make it worthwhile for a chemical plant to relocate. You would likely be able to make it worthwhile for a paper mill to relocate. Many communities would not be able to raise enough to get a discreet brothel to move away. But of course if you're rich or live in a very conservative community or one with many children it could be done.

This doesn't really qualify as "law" either. Well, it gets semantic. I would say a law is a static rule that is coercively enforced. A law enforcement agency would likely need to rely on violence in order to prevent murders, thefts, etc. In order to do so, it would need almost universal support. If you want a paper mill to move out of your neighborhood, you would be using arbitration and not force. Using force would be much more costly for everyone involved. It is probably less costly for you to buy the mill outright than to use force in removing it. So this isn't really a "legal" issue.

Whatever your terminology, without coercion the "rules" of your community aren't the same as normal laws with military backing.

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that this process is possible, there's no reason businesses can't work (alone or together) to accomplish similar things. They could certainly attempt to pass and enforce laws which expressly limit their competitor's ability to compete. These laws might be contrary to the spirit of "do whatever you want with what is yours, just don't kill or steal," but that is not proof that they would not be supported.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be suicide from an economic standpoint. Such an association would implode. How are they going to enforce the laws? The prices are going to be exorbitant especially if the enforcement companies are willing to commit violence. But there aren't going to be any such companies - for many, many reasons violence is bad for business. "Assassination companies" would be even less profitable than they are under a government. They might exist, but they would hardly be capable of accomplishing anything on this scale. With popular resistance, threats from similar companies, and danger of employees "taking a better offer," among other things, the company would end up in a sorry state very quickly. If they aren't willing to commit violence, their enforcement options are limited.

I'm not sure how to "prove" it, but if you give me any specific situation I'm sure I (to say nothing of pvn and Boro) can identify how coercion is a very bad idea in that situation. It is almost always better to come to some kind of collaborative agreement through private arbitration. But this implies that you somehow convince your competitors not to compete with you. If you are offering something worth enough for them to drop their plans entirely, then presumably that is going to incentivize other competitors from rising up in order to get similar offers. There is no way to maintain such a state of affairs without government. The only exception is one in which the "group of businesses" is powerful and corrupt enough to form an actual government. This should not happen under AC. For the reasons states throughout the thread, such a level of power-consolidation should be impossible. However, if it did happen the result would no longer be anarcho-capitalist.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I'd think he'd have exactly as much authority as he is willing to buy. If AC Rockefeller wants to pass and enforce a self-serving law, who is it that will oppose the law? "The market" is just a bunch of people acting in their own self-interest (or at least, what they perceive to be their own self-interest.) Who is it that will actually spend capital to block Rockefeller's machinations? His weaker competitors certainly would, but I'd think most people are going to be pretty indifferent.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it doesn't affect them, then sure they will. So? If Rockefeller can afford to continue enforcement of an expensive law, he must be doing a lot of good to society. That's quite a lot of money to spend on a whim. Also, if everyone is indifferent then the law seems to adversely affect very few people. So what's the harm again? Can you give a specific example of a law people would be indifferent to? Also remember laws are never set in stone. Rockefeller can't just place a law on the books and then when it suddenly becomes convenient start enforcing it. There are no "books," just enforcement agencies. And any law can be removed by some other rich person, or a group of not-so-rich people. Every time that law is enforced, either Rockefeller or the agency will have to do the enforcing. So unless Rockefeller has a very interesting arrangement, his law-enforcement is going to sap away his wealth eventually. Even if he has an arrangement, when it becomes unprofitable for an agency to enforce the law they will be forced to break that arrangement. Rockefeller can't just "pass" the law and then sit on his haunches.

[ QUOTE ]
This presupposes that I can give you a real-world example of a place that has corporations but does not have government. Otherwise you can simply say that since the government has the final coercive authority, the corporation didn't really erect the barrier. If there is/was such a place, I do not know enough about it to reply with an example - but I don't think this really helps your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about a hypothetical example? That's what you're using through most of your arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
I've given several examples. National defense, roads, consumer protection, etc. You might add environmental concerns. Who owns air and water? If someone owns them, what enterprising gentleman will be the first to charge me to breathe his air? If nobody owns them, who can profit from them? How will we ensure that everyone is a willing participant (and a willing payor) in keeping our air clean?

[/ QUOTE ]

These are questions resolved by the market. You also assume that a government can effectively resolve the problems. I don't think any state can do so. I also think that environmental concerns can be protected privately. For example, GE has recently "gone green" for purely economic reasons. I recently went to Costa Rica and a number of companies - from hotel bungalows to zipline services to pharmaceutical companies - had an interest in protecting the rainforest. A lot of private environmental nonprofit groups were also helping. The government, in contrast, was doing very little. Transparency makes people wiser about their resources in a free market. In other words, while a government can use up resources it doesn't actually have to spare, a private organization can't do this. So renewable resources are naturally more efficient and profitable, all things being equal.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that "I don't see how this can work, so it can't" is not a proof. It was not intended as a proof, but when clipped out of a post and taken out of context, it looks that way. When I originally said that, it was in a list of alternatives that I'd consider worse than taxation. Then my AC-character threw up his hands and said he'd rather just pay his taxes. I've attempted to explicate my position on why this might be so more clearly above.

The fundamental difference between the way I'm presenting that argument and my mock argument about rocket ships to Mars is that I permit you to present evidence that I am wrong. If I say to you "94 is a prime number, because I can't conceive of any way it can be factored," you can simply reply "47 x 2 = 94." I will be forced to agree.

On the other hand, I can't see how anyone can propose an argument to someone who says "I believe in a force so powerful that nobody can comprehend it. That force will solve this problem."

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't what's happening. Pvn has given detailed responses to every argument you've made. He has given examples and situations and mechanics. He admits he can't cover every contingency. But he has covered many of them. And it seems to me that you have failed to provide any reasoning for your position. In fact, most of your arguments go something like "this seems like a problem to me, so government must be better." But you haven't once explained why government is better, how it manages to solve the problems you present, or how it manages to avoid other problems.

[cov47]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand the premise well. If a road project isn't economical, it won't happen. The market won't support it. And if X is large, then I won't pay for X. If a road project is inefficient, then nobody will pay for it. Obviously it's not perfect - maybe company A is slightly better at building roads than company B, but company B has better marketing. But if company B is really terrible at making roads, people will choose company A. Also the marketing staff at company B will have incentive to work for company A instead. The mechanisms for ensuring efficiency and value are the basis of the market itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right in that we're not talking about the same thing here. I'm not asking what competition in the road construction/maintenance sector looks like. Whatever companies succeed in this sector must recoup their expenses somehow. I'm trying to envision the billing model these companies will employ, and I find that difficult. If they charge everyone in town, aren't they essentially taxing people? If they don't charge everyone, don't they have to decide who to charge, how to charge them, and how much to charge them? And won't this administrative process itself carry some associated cost?

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't really qualify as "law" either. Well, it gets semantic. I would say a law is a static rule that is coercively enforced. A law enforcement agency would likely need to rely on violence in order to prevent murders, thefts, etc. In order to do so, it would need almost universal support. If you want a paper mill to move out of your neighborhood, you would be using arbitration and not force. Using force would be much more costly for everyone involved. It is probably less costly for you to buy the mill outright than to use force in removing it. So this isn't really a "legal" issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your definition of law is fine.

Consider this scenario. You live in Town A. I live in Town B, and own a vacant lot in Town A. I now inform you I'm going to construct a distasteful object in my vacant lot unless you pay me an extravagant sum. If everyone else in Town A finds the object I choose to construct distasteful, they could all just pay me a little to go away. That seems to reward my unpopular behavior. Also, wouldn't it be cheaper to send a few thugs to ensure I don't go through with my project? Thugs are cheap.

I agree that coercion has a cost, but I don't think it always is more expensive than arbitration. It should be comparatively cheap to use coercion to keep people from doing unpopular things. The cost of coercion is more or less fixed. If I don't want your paper mill in town, it doesn't matter what your paper mill is worth.

[ QUOTE ]
If it doesn't affect them, then sure they will. So? If Rockefeller can afford to continue enforcement of an expensive law, he must be doing a lot of good to society. That's quite a lot of money to spend on a whim. Also, if everyone is indifferent then the law seems to adversely affect very few people. So what's the harm again? Can you give a specific example of a law people would be indifferent to? Also remember laws are never set in stone. Rockefeller can't just place a law on the books and then when it suddenly becomes convenient start enforcing it. There are no "books," just enforcement agencies. And any law can be removed by some other rich person, or a group of not-so-rich people. Every time that law is enforced, either Rockefeller or the agency will have to do the enforcing. So unless Rockefeller has a very interesting arrangement, his law-enforcement is going to sap away his wealth eventually. Even if he has an arrangement, when it becomes unprofitable for an agency to enforce the law they will be forced to break that arrangement. Rockefeller can't just "pass" the law and then sit on his haunches.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think the citizenry might be confused by a total absence of "books" defining what a particular agency regards as a crime. If you even admit the possibility that people might use coercion to enforce the law, it will be desirable for everyone to know what the law is.

People might be indifferent to the law "only Rockefeller can operate oil plants." Or perhaps Rockefeller would be more subtle and pass a law requiring a "safety measure" as discussed before, which might under further inspection turn out to mean "only Rockefeller can operate oil plants."

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way to maintain such a state of affairs without government. The only exception is one in which the "group of businesses" is powerful and corrupt enough to form an actual government. This should not happen under AC. For the reasons states throughout the thread, such a level of power-consolidation should be impossible. However, if it did happen the result would no longer be anarcho-capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does government mean here? The power to coerce? To make laws? To tax? At what point exactly will a powerful business conglomerate officially cross the line into governance?

[ QUOTE ]
Pvn has given detailed responses to every argument you've made. He has given examples and situations and mechanics. He admits he can't cover every contingency. But he has covered many of them. And it seems to me that you have failed to provide any reasoning for your position. In fact, most of your arguments go something like "this seems like a problem to me, so government must be better." But you haven't once explained why government is better, how it manages to solve the problems you present, or how it manages to avoid other problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government solves the freeloader problem effectively in my opinion by instituting taxes. Taxation is a simple way to ensure that most everyone pays for the things that most everyone finds necessary. AC does not admit taxation as an option for ensuring that everyone has basic services, and I am not at all convinced it will in every instance provide a better option.

Government can provide a power structure that is at least somewhat separated from economic power. It is possible to construct a governmental system in which your rights are protected by something other than your money. I think this is extremely desirable, lest we find the richest control everything while the poor become disenfranchised. In AC it is my belief that enough money can enact and enforce any law (though we do not seem to agree), and that the poor may not be able to afford to protect even their most basic liberties.

Government can regulate business. Government can protect consumers if business refuses to do so. Historically, many businesses have not willingly protected their consumers. In AC it seems we are only left with the market to injure the bad actors, perhaps after they have already damaged our persons or our property.

So far the only post I saw listing the problems of government belongs to you, madnak. You stated that it's unfair to have your money used for programs you don't support. I agree, but that's a problem I can live with because I do not believe that some programs would be provided at all without government. A good government is one that provides what its general public wants. When the government's desire is not in line with the public's, I hope the government has appropriate mechanisms for change. When my desire is not in line with the public's, I'll live with that.

Beyond that you seem to imply that the mere existence of government inherently harms the economy. I don't agree. Certainly government can take an action that harms the economy, but I think it's a pretty big leap from there to the places you seem to want to go.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't propose "an" alternative. I propose to let people decide on their own what alternatives are superior, through market action. I make no arrogant assumptions of their preferences or of what is or is not superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

If taxation is impossible, might the market arrive only at alternative solutions that are more costly than taxation for some individuals, or even all individuals?

[/ QUOTE ]

They will most certainly be more expensive for *some* individuals. As for more expensive for all, I suppose it's possible for someone to market a solution that is more expensive for everyone, though it's not likely, and it's certainly not unavoidable.

[ QUOTE ]
If the idea of paying for things you do not use is unbearable, logically we must construct a method for determining who used what.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "we"? The owner of whatever resource we're talking about *can* do so if he wishes, or he can devise some other buisness plan. All-you-can-eat buffets somehow manage to stay in business.

[ QUOTE ]
If the cost of implementing this method is $X, each individual must pay his share of X, as well as whatever his use of the road actually costs. If the value of X is too high, the real cost of roads will be higher than it was with taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but not necessarily a brilliant insight. Note that X includes layers and layers of bureaucracy, not only in the "road building" (or whatever resource we're talking about) project, but in revenue collection, enforcement, budgeting etc. You can't just look at the cost of executing the project (even if we ignore typical government inefficiencies): if the government spends $100M on a road, the *actual* cost is the $100M plus the costs of collecting that $100M from taxpayers. The layers compound the bureaucratic overhead.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't believe that since the market COULD create some alternative to taxation, it would NECESSARILY be better. In fact for the scenario of roads, I personally think the alternatives are likely worse. You are correct to say that I am unable to prove this. All I can tell you is I think X is large in the above case. If you think that this simply reflects a lack of free thinking/intelligence/creativity on my part, there's not much I can say to dissuade you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, you've got a hunch. OK, that sounds like enough justification to steal money from the population. After all, it's (probably) for their own good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really. The same laws that apply to individuals would apply to businesses (since businesses are owned by and made up of individuals) - namely, don't kill, don't steal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think these are the only laws that will exist? I think laws that restrict your use of your own property will arise very quickly. I would prefer my neighbor not build a chemical weapons plant or a paper mill or a whorehouse next door, but it's his property. Now what? I would support rules against those things, and if I cared enough, I would join together with like-minded folks and pay the cost of enforcing those rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd. Of course actions on your property might have effects on people outside of your property. Why do you assume such actions would be unobjectionable? If you create damages for someone else, or interfere with their use of their property (effectively stealing), why do you presume there would be no consequences?

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that this process is possible, there's no reason businesses can't work (alone or together) to accomplish similar things. They could certainly attempt to pass and enforce laws which expressly limit their competitor's ability to compete. These laws might be contrary to the spirit of "do whatever you want with what is yours, just don't kill or steal," but that is not proof that they would not be supported.

[/ QUOTE ]

What mechanism are they using to "pass and enforce" these laws?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He can't *effectively* manipulate the laws because the market will reject bogus laws. He has no authority to force his preferential laws on everyone else, so his manipulations have no impact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'd think he'd have exactly as much authority as he is willing to buy. If AC Rockefeller wants to pass and enforce a self-serving law, who is it that will oppose the law? "The market" is just a bunch of people acting in their own self-interest (or at least, what they perceive to be their own self-interest.) Who is it that will actually spend capital to block Rockefeller's machinations? His weaker competitors certainly would, but I'd think most people are going to be pretty indifferent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what mechanism is he using to "pass and enforce" these laws? I can "pass" all sorts of laws in my basement legislature, and I don't see anyone opposing them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do corporations erect unfair barriers to entry without governments? Can you provide any examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

This presupposes that I can give you a real-world example of a place that has corporations but does not have government. Otherwise you can simply say that since the government has the final coercive authority, the corporation didn't really erect the barrier. If there is/was such a place, I do not know enough about it to reply with an example - but I don't think this really helps your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, then, how *in theory* will they do this without government?

Note that the question does *not* presuppose existence of government. People can take actions and accomplish things *in spite of* government. Why will they be able to erect barriers to entry without government if they can't with government? If there are not any such examples because of government, why are there anti-trust trials? Is this an admission that antitrust legislation does not, in fact, punish monopolists (a position I hold, BTW)? The alternative explanation is that the government erects barriers for companies then punishes the company for the actions of the government. That doesn't sound very rational or desirable.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which ones? I agree, it's not rational to pay for something if you can just let someone else pay for it, but I don't see why freeloaders are going to be a problem in cases that they are not a problem currently under a government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've given several examples. National defense, roads, consumer protection, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why do you think defense, road, and consumer protection companies going to provide service to non-payers?

[ QUOTE ]
You might add environmental concerns. Who owns air and water? If someone owns them, what enterprising gentleman will be the first to charge me to breathe his air?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's already happened. There are all sorts of air vendors. Compressed air, purified gases, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
If nobody owns them, who can profit from them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Who *should* "profit" from them if "they" are unowned?

[ QUOTE ]
How will we ensure that everyone is a willing participant (and a willing payor) in keeping our air clean?

[/ QUOTE ]

How clean is "clean"?

Polluters that cause damages to others (either their persons or property) are liable for such damages. Government provides some level of immunity for polluters currently, by setting standards for acceptale emissions, and by restricting ownership of some resources.

You seem to think people can pollute with impunity without government. Let me ask this: what's the difference between emitting harmful particles into the air and shooting a bullet into the air? If the harmful particles interact with my body, and cause damage, there is a liability, right? Isn't a bullet just a bigger "harmful particle"? If it's clear that one creates a liability why isn't it clear that the other does? Shooting bullets towards me, even if I am not hit, is an aggressive, threatening action and creates pursuable damages. Shooting into a hill I own and not threatening anyone is not. Why is polluting any different?

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I can't see how anyone can propose an argument to someone who says "I believe in a force so powerful that nobody can comprehend it. That force will solve this problem."

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this *exactly* what the argument for government is?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to envision the billing model these companies will employ, and I find that difficult. If they charge everyone in town, aren't they essentially taxing people? If they don't charge everyone, don't they have to decide who to charge, how to charge them, and how much to charge them? And won't this administrative process itself carry some associated cost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever seen one of these?

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/inside/offlede/ez-pass-insidesmall-091504.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
Government solves the freeloader problem effectively in my opinion by instituting taxes. Taxation is a simple way to ensure that most everyone pays for the things that most everyone finds necessary. AC does not admit taxation as an option for ensuring that everyone has basic services, and I am not at all convinced it will in every instance provide a better option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, are you worried about freeloaders or about "ensuring everyone has basic services"?

Taxation-funded distribution *creates* freeloaders.

If someone *doesn't* use a road, or some other "basic" service (a term which has a vague, easily-redefinable meaning), aren't all the other people that do use that service freeloading off of his taxes? His "contribution" lowers the amount they have to pay.

[ QUOTE ]
Government can provide a power structure that is at least somewhat separated from economic power. It is possible to construct a governmental system in which your rights are protected by something other than your money. I think this is extremely desirable, lest we find the richest control everything while the poor become disenfranchised. In AC it is my belief that enough money can enact and enforce any law (though we do not seem to agree), and that the poor may not be able to afford to protect even their most basic liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, this is a naive view. Nobody with money has ever co-opted government as a means to their own selfish ends?

Power structures are expressly for wielding power, which seems to be what you want to avoid, so why do you advocate more power structures?

[ QUOTE ]
Government can regulate business. Government can protect consumers if business refuses to do so. Historically, many businesses have not willingly protected their consumers. In AC it seems we are only left with the market to injure the bad actors, perhaps after they have already damaged our persons or our property.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that worse that government? Are you saying that government prevents damages *before they occur*? By, say, regulating drugs, for example? Like Vioxx?

Have you ever noticed all the safety seals on tylenol, peanut butter, milk, and just about every other consumable product out there? Do you think those are there because of government regulation? They're there because companies figured out that ensuring such safety was more profitable after the cyanide tylenol guy went nutso in 1982. By the way, the government failed to stop that guy before he killed anyone.

Why is tylenol still around? Not because the government guaranteed its safety, but because the producer did, to the satisfaction of the buyers.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/tylenol/crisis.html

The market demands safe products, and rewards companies that provide that. Similarly, companies that do not willingly protect their customers are punished by the market.

[ QUOTE ]
So far the only post I saw listing the problems of government belongs to you, madnak. You stated that it's unfair to have your money used for programs you don't support. I agree, but that's a problem I can live with because I do not believe that some programs would be provided at all without government. A good government is one that provides what its general public wants. When the government's desire is not in line with the public's, I hope the government has appropriate mechanisms for change. When my desire is not in line with the public's, I'll live with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a lot of hoping and praying in there. And again, you assume your preference (to put your eggs in one government basket) is shared by everyone else.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
The market for security and justice will dictate what laws are efficient and which are not. Ultimately the consumer of security decides which laws he pays for his security service to enforce on his own property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, this same silly argument. I keep shooting it dead and you keep reviving it.

I don't want the legality of my religious beliefs or sexual preference or (insert minority here) to depend on a market.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The market for security and justice will dictate what laws are efficient and which are not. Ultimately the consumer of security decides which laws he pays for his security service to enforce on his own property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, this same silly argument. I keep shooting it dead and you keep reviving it.

I don't want the legality of my religious beliefs or sexual preference or (insert minority here) to depend on a market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, this same silly argument. I keep shooting it dead and you keep reviving it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The market for security and justice will dictate what laws are efficient and which are not. Ultimately the consumer of security decides which laws he pays for his security service to enforce on his own property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, this same silly argument. I keep shooting it dead and you keep reviving it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting it dead? By decreeing that some bunch of thugs are going to round you up? Isn't that what government does?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want the legality of my religious beliefs or sexual preference or (insert minority here) to depend on a market.

[/ QUOTE ]

So instead you want it to depend on what?

You're worried about a bunch of people that don't like you putting their money together to throw you in jail, but you don't think they're capable of electing some guy to use *everybody's* money and doing the same thing (making it even cheaper for the small group that wants to do this?

Private property is the best way to provide your freedom to worship or f*** as you wish. The people that oppose you can only enforce their preferences *on their own property*.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Ever seen one of these?

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/inside/offlede/ez-pass-insidesmall-091504.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of the ones here in southern California are more efficient. Instead of stopping at a toll, you just put a sticker on your window (with something like a bar code on it) and it's scanned as you pass. You don't have to stop or slow down. You are then sent a monthly bill.

Also, note that Disneyland has roads throughout, which were not built by any government.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, note that Disneyland has roads throughout, which were not built by any government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, Disneyland - home of the $9 hot dog.

[Borodog]

Yep. In Disneyland, all of the hot dog stands are owned by the government.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep. In Disneyland, all of the hot dog stands are owned by the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[Borodog]

Disney governs Disneyland. Disney has a monopoly on the production and distribution of hot dogs within the confines of Disneyland. Thus, it can be expected that the cost of hot dogs in Disneyland will be much higher, and the quality probably poorer, than compared to regions where competitive supply of hot dogs is allowed.

[cov47]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, that sounds like enough justification to steal money from the population. After all, it's (probably) for their own good.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government is "stealing" from you? Your terminology is ridiculously pejorative. Such discourse, however, is a necessity of your position: that government could never do anything good, and must be abolished. You sound like a hardcore Marxist trying to argue that the bourgeoisie is "stealing" from the proles. (Come to think of it, AC really IS just Marxism, with the angels and demons reversed.)

Don't you think that just maybe, American taxation arose largely from the people's desire to have a national defense? Don't you think anti-trust laws arose as a response to an era of robber barons? Don't you think government regulation of food began when the market provided us with dangerous, inedible meat? Don't you think the New Deal was a response to a market failure of catastrophic proportions? Did the market abolish slavery? Did the market end child labor? Why would it? American history is a tale of government providing the things the market could not or would not.

Oh and hey, while we're talking about stealing, did you steal your land from the Indians? Or maybe the American government stole it from them, and is kind enough to let you squat? It seems the most inalienable right is the right to own things. But who decided that the things you think are yours actually are? Do you really have anything other than a deed (which, incidentally, is given significance only by an issuing government!) and your personal might to defend your property rights?

[ QUOTE ]
So why do you think defense, road, and consumer protection companies going to provide service to non-payers?

[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth is a defense company going to prevent it? If a nuclear warhead is fired at AC City, will the defense company decide not to intercept it because not everyone in town is a card-carrying company member? Maybe it will just charge everyone for the service after providing it - whether each individual requested it or not. You know, coercive taxation.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to think people can pollute with impunity without government. Let me ask this: what's the difference between emitting harmful particles into the air and shooting a bullet into the air? If the harmful particles interact with my body, and cause damage, there is a liability, right? Isn't a bullet just a bigger "harmful particle"? If it's clear that one creates a liability why isn't it clear that the other does? Shooting bullets towards me, even if I am not hit, is an aggressive, threatening action and creates pursuable damages. Shooting into a hill I own and not threatening anyone is not. Why is polluting any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

So after I die from breathing polluted air, the doctor will autopsy my lungs. He will remove each tiny particle, identify its nature and origin. He will then contact my insurance company, who will sue each relevant industrialist for damages on a per particle basis. This is the kind of thing that has to happen in ACland, where there's no such thing as a public good. Roads are the same as loaves of bread; bullets are the same as pollution.

[ QUOTE ]
Boy, this is a naive view. Nobody with money has ever co-opted government as a means to their own selfish ends?

Power structures are expressly for wielding power, which seems to be what you want to avoid, so why do you advocate more power structures?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I could use a bad statist term, you might call it "checks and balances." If the market is the only source of power, you have a dollarocracy. While people with money certainly coopt the government sometimes, they don't even have to bother under AC.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that government prevents damages *before they occur*? By, say, regulating drugs, for example? Like Vioxx?

[/ QUOTE ]

Presenting one instance of a failure is hardly damning evidence that government is a failure. If you want to make a case study of the relative quality of drugs in regulated and unregulated markets, go nuts. I doubt you will, because the weight of the evidence is not something that concerns you. Who cares about a history of people choosing government? You have Somalia! And now you have Vioxx!

[ QUOTE ]
There's a lot of hoping and praying in there. And again, you assume your preference (to put your eggs in one government basket) is shared by everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't assume that. My desire for government is not founded on the assumption that everyone is in agreement. I'm comfortable with coercion having a role in society. No reasonable person believes that the world has ever been without it. Coercion will be alive and well in ACland too. Your neighbors, the powerful businesses, the defense firms, will have the power to make you comply. Some of them will have guns, I assure you. Some of them will find the weight of their wealth enough to compel you. Can't a contract itself be coercive? Can't you contract yourself into indentured servitude? Do contract killers trouble you at all? Can't you be forced to sign your name to anything, if you can't afford the alternative?

Doing whatever you want and letting everyone else do what they want has never been in the human nature. There's a sort of hippie idealism undercurrent running through your posts. It's as if when we remove government, then you'll be able to do whatever you want. Nobody will waste your money on stuff you don't believe in. Nobody will be able to exercise power over you. Nobody will violate your property. Nobody would dare visit their moral code on you. You'll be firing your guns into the hillside, brewing up a bathtub full of meth, getting head from three hookers at once. Isn't that the real American dream? The problem is just that it won't work that way. The powerful people (which in AC, is just the rich people), will always be trying to mold the earth in their image. The fact that it's somehow economically irrational for them to care what you're doing doesn't mean that they'll stop caring.

[DougShrapnel]

Hey ACers, I'm not sold that efficeincy and effectiveness are really what anyone would want from a government, or law making body. I'm a bit of a minarchist, a term I heard first in this thread. Giving all the power to any one person or one agent, is generally a bad idea. Even if the power is given to the blind hand of the market, the market then will exist to serve itself, and not as intended to serve the inhabitants of ACLand, much like goverment has morphed to serve itself.

In ACland, I'm not really sure what government means other than it is a derogatory word that means "bad". In ACland you still have parties that take on the roles of government. The insurance companies are one such example. They become government. Sure that term isn't used. But it is what it is. A less costly, more effective government. A less stable government.

Governments provide the illusion of stability, AC embraces the chaos. Because of AC's nature it's a contradiction of terms for it to provide an illusion of stability. AC would slightly be more stable, but would appear much more chaotic. Most people are willing to pay far to high of a price for the illusion of security. They pay with thier money, they pay with their rights. Oleanna refers to a folk story about how a man (named Ole) and his wife (Anna) bought acres of swampland then sold it as farmland to those who were willing to invest their lives' savings. Once the money had been collected, the pair vanished and the buyers were left with worthless property. This became known as the "Oleanna swindle." Government is an Oleanna swindle, lets just not pay so damn much for it.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Shooting it dead? By decreeing that some bunch of thugs are going to round you up? Isn't that what government does?


[/ QUOTE ]

They haven't yet given me any trouble for being an atheist.

[ QUOTE ]
So instead you want it to depend on what?


[/ QUOTE ]

Constitutional law, and a justice system that abides by said Constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
You're worried about a bunch of people that don't like you putting their money together to throw you in jail, but you don't think they're capable of electing some guy to use *everybody's* money and doing the same thing (making it even cheaper for the small group that wants to do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible in theory, but it would take an enormous effort on their part to elect someone to repeal the Bill of Rights. In an AC system, there would be few or no obstacles in their way. For safety, atheists/homosexuals/etc would have to all live in the same area, in order to combine their power. Then the Christian nutcases would just hire mercenaries to go kill them.

AC is fine if everyone behaves rationally. AC can't successfully deal with actual human beings, though. You guys keep touting your fantasy world, totally ignoring the fact that some people are just plain crazy.

Under the US Constitution, in order for a group of people to obtain that kind of power, they would have to amend the Constitution, which requires ratification by a majority (2/3, I think) of states. That's not an easy thing to do. in AC, they just pay for it and there's no one to stop them.

Really, the entire AC argument ends here. There is no way to protect basic human rights under AC. That's why a central government *is* necessary. Not all people behave rationally all the time. In order for a Constitutional Democracy to go nuts, most of the population has to act irrationally at the same time. It's possible, but very unlikely.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Government is an Oleanna swindle, lets just not pay so damn much for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. There are perfectly legitimate uses for a government.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
In ACland, I'm not really sure what government means other than it is a derogatory word that means "bad". In ACland you still have parties that take on the roles of government. The insurance companies are one such example. They become government. Sure that term isn't used. But it is what it is. A less costly, more effective government.

[/ QUOTE ]
The difference is that a government is a monopolist. The security companies aren't. They provide some of the same services, but the difference between a monopoly and a competitive market may be significant.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The government is "stealing" from you? Your terminology is ridiculously pejorative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is pejorative, because the action I'm describing is so audaciously criminal. Of course criminals object to calling their crime a crime.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think that just maybe, American taxation arose largely from the people's desire to have a national defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. "The people" does not have a "desire". Even if this were true, the goal itself does not necessarily justify any and every action taken in order to accomplish it.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think anti-trust laws arose as a response to an era of robber barons?

[/ QUOTE ]

That might have been the ostensible motivation, but they don't address the problem. Robber barrons are mercantilists. They derrive their market power through governemnt interference. The solution to the problem of robber barrons is not antitrust legislation, but getting rid of mercantilist policies.

Antitrust legislation is invariably used to punish compaies that either 1) outcompete companies that have political connections (standard oil, microsoft) or 2) obtained market dominance explicitly through government monopoly grants (AT&amp;T).

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think government regulation of food began when the market provided us with dangerous, inedible meat?

[/ QUOTE ]

We know that despite goverment regulation, tainted meat still reaches market. What should the reaction be when government regulation provides "us" with dangerous, inedible meat?

The real question is how many cases would occur in each situation (regulated vs. free market), how bad they would be, and how much overhead is imposed.

There is a market for edible meat.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think the New Deal was a response to a market failure of catastrophic proportions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really want to go there? The New Deal was a response to a *government* failure of catastrophic proportions (and was itself a catastrophic failure). Wilson ushered in an era of market intervention
beyond even Lincoln's wildest dreams.

[ QUOTE ]
Did the market abolish slavery? Did the market end child labor? Why would it? American history is a tale of government providing the things the market could not or would not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Government "provided" slavery in the first place!

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and hey, while we're talking about stealing, did you steal your land from the Indians? Or maybe the American government stole it from them, and is kind enough to let you squat? It seems the most inalienable right is the right to own things. But who decided that the things you think are yours actually are? Do you really have anything other than a deed (which, incidentally, is given significance only by an issuing government!) and your personal might to defend your property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deeds only have significance if issued by a government? Why, then, are they insured by private companies?

As for stolen land, it's possible that lots of things I own have component parts that were once, long ago, stolen.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why do you think defense, road, and consumer protection companies going to provide service to non-payers?

[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth is a defense company going to prevent it? If a nuclear warhead is fired at AC City, will the defense company decide not to intercept it because not everyone in town is a card-carrying company member? Maybe it will just charge everyone for the service after providing it - whether each individual requested it or not. You know, coercive taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or they can just provide the service they sold to their customers. Yes, some other people might benefit.

There are market solutions to these types of problems. See http://www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf for more information.

[ QUOTE ]
So after I die from breathing polluted air, the doctor will autopsy my lungs. He will remove each tiny particle, identify its nature and origin. He will then contact my insurance company, who will sue each relevant industrialist for damages on a per particle basis. This is the kind of thing that has to happen in ACland, where there's no such thing as a public good. Roads are the same as loaves of bread; bullets are the same as pollution.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is a "public good" and who gets to define it? Why does someone else get to impose their definitioin on me?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Boy, this is a naive view. Nobody with money has ever co-opted government as a means to their own selfish ends?

Power structures are expressly for wielding power, which seems to be what you want to avoid, so why do you advocate more power structures?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I could use a bad statist term, you might call it "checks and balances." If the market is the only source of power, you have a dollarocracy. While people with money certainly coopt the government sometimes, they don't even have to bother under AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

They *can't* under AC, because there is nothing to coopt.

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares about a history of people choosing government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which people? The people that seek to plunder from others.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm comfortable with coercion having a role in society.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really all we need to know.

[ QUOTE ]
Can't a contract itself be coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but you if you can chose to agree to a contract or not. I didn't get an opportunity to make a choice between signing a contract with government or opting out.

[ QUOTE ]
Do contract killers trouble you at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Red herring. Come on.

[ QUOTE ]
Can't you be forced to sign your name to anything, if you can't afford the alternative?

[/ QUOTE ]

"forced"? Maybe. Is the person that you're contracting with the person that put you into the crappy situation?

[ QUOTE ]
The powerful people (which in AC, is just the rich people), will always be trying to mold the earth in their image. The fact that it's somehow economically irrational for them to care what you're doing doesn't mean that they'll stop caring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course these people are always going to exist. Government is nothing more than a tool for them to use in pursuit of their evil goals. Why make it easier for them?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if the power is given to the blind hand of the market, the market then will exist to serve itself, and not as intended to serve the inhabitants of ACLand, much like goverment has morphed to serve itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What is the market's goal? How does a market serve itself?

[ QUOTE ]
In ACland, I'm not really sure what government means other than it is a derogatory word that means "bad". In ACland you still have parties that take on the roles of government. The insurance companies are one such example. They become government. Sure that term isn't used. But it is what it is. A less costly, more effective government. A less stable government.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not the same as government, because they compete with each other. Governments are geographical monopolies. You can't just fire your government and hire another one like you can an insurance company.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
They haven't yet given me any trouble for being an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not currently a behavior deemed "undesirable" but there are others that are.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're worried about a bunch of people that don't like you putting their money together to throw you in jail, but you don't think they're capable of electing some guy to use *everybody's* money and doing the same thing (making it even cheaper for the small group that wants to do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible in theory, but it would take an enormous effort on their part to elect someone to repeal the Bill of Rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would take an even bigger effort without government as a tool.

[ QUOTE ]
In an AC system, there would be few or no obstacles in their way.

[/ QUOTE ]

There would be no mechanism (funded by other people) in place for them to accomplish this. They'd have to pay for it themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
For safety, atheists/homosexuals/etc would have to all live in the same area, in order to combine their power. Then the Christian nutcases would just hire mercenaries to go kill them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the "undesirables" don't have any funding?

[ QUOTE ]
AC is fine if everyone behaves rationally. AC can't successfully deal with actual human beings, though. You guys keep touting your fantasy world, totally ignoring the fact that some people are just plain crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government is fine if everyone behaves unselfishly. Government can't successfully deal with actual human beings, though. You guys keep touting your fantasy world, totally ignoring the fact that some people are just plain crazy.

[ QUOTE ]
Really, the entire AC argument ends here. There is no way to protect basic human rights under AC. That's why a central government *is* necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

So to protect rights, you have to violate them?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a reason most of these types of arguments are advanced by people with little or no formal training in economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% wrong, and you have to have known it to be wrong, too (making it tough to take the rest of your posts seriously)

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not currently a behavior deemed "undesirable" but there are others that are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[ QUOTE ]
It would take an even bigger effort without government as a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

It'd take less. All it would take is the desire and the cash.

[ QUOTE ]
And the "undesirables" don't have any funding?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing approaching the funding of the other 80+% of the population.


[ QUOTE ]
Government is fine if everyone behaves unselfishly. Government can't successfully deal with actual human beings, though. You guys keep touting your fantasy world, totally ignoring the fact that some people are just plain crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's statements like these that make me wonder how old you are.

[ QUOTE ]
So to protect rights, you have to violate them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. What a stupid question to ask in light of the fact that I've *already* stated that I do not believe taxation is necessary in order to fund a government.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not currently a behavior deemed "undesirable" but there are others that are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

Recreational drug use, currently. In the past, it's been anything from homosexuality to having the wrong skin color.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would take an even bigger effort without government as a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

It'd take less. All it would take is the desire and the cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a government, all it takes is the desire. Someone else gets to pay for it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the "undesirables" don't have any funding?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing approaching the funding of the other 80+% of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

If 80% of the population really want the other 20% eradicated, and are actually willing to pay for it out of their own pocket, then some piece of paper isn't going to stop it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So to protect rights, you have to violate them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. What a stupid question to ask in light of the fact that I've *already* stated that I do not believe taxation is necessary in order to fund a government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taxation isn't the only method of rights violation. How is your system, if it's "voluntarily" funded, different than a free market solution? From what I gather, the main difference is that government gets a monopoly on force. Is that not a violation of rights?