Imagining a transition to Free Market Anarchy (long)

[Dane S]

As an AC newb, I've been reading material and mulling over concepts for about a week or so. What I've been thinking about most lately is how Free Market Anarchy could plausibly "take over" in an entrenched capitalism-based state like America, and what this means for the AC-land that would result. This is a thought experiment.

It seems to me that the most basic condition for the onset of Free Market Anarchism is the removal of barriers of entry to state monopolized service industries. Private companies must be allowed to compete with the state in offering all its necessary functions: minting, courts, enforcement, defense, roads, parks, penal system, etc. etc. Given the inefficiency of government, private industry would likely be able to out compete it in relatively short order if it had a fair opportunity.

There shouldn't be a need to "dismantle" the state, it should instead die away naturally as the market replaces it in every sector and the society realizes it has no need for it. An interesting consequence of this form of evolution is that the state would work as a BASELINE for the society... at least initially, things could only get better, because if things didn't get better then the state wouldn't die.

AC-land is peculiar in this sense--if it ever manages to exist, it must by the very nature of its existence be an improvement on the state which preceded it in all its aspects, because if it wasn't an improvement, it could have never out competed the state and come to exist. Therefore, only giving the market the opportunity to compete FAIRLY with the state will prove whether or not Free Market Anarchy is viable. If it isn't viable, it won't occur, because it won't out compete the state, BUT the stalled pursuit of it will have performed the extremely useful function of defining categorically what the essential roles of the state are, and eliminating all those that are nonessential (i.e. those that can be better performed by a free market). It's fine to theorize about whether or not AC-land is realistic, but exposing the state to competition is the only true way to test it.

But is it really feasible that a state would voluntarily risk its own power, even its own existence, by exposing itself to competition in the free market? It seems unlikely on the surface, but perhaps there are ways in which it could come to pass. It would likely be a gradual process built on a symbiosis of economic and political evolution, each side driving the other.

The key to this symbiosis would be the free market's ability to out compete the state in a critical area: employment. Expertise and experience in law, defense, legislation, in EVERY sector of government that the free market replaced would be in high demand, and the market has much greater resources in capital and ingenuity that allow it to offer much more attractive employment than the state. If the free market were allowed to encroach, perhaps it's plausible that legislators would find it in their own best interests to help further this encroachment. And of course, as society saw the benefits of improved services, its members would likely lend their political support to further deregulation and revoking of state monopolies. Anarchy is only arrived at after the fact. You will wake up one day and say, "holy [censored], the state is gone! I hardly even noticed." Or if it's never arrived at, that means it isn't feasible, but the market tried its best.

What kind of a society will be amenable to the spark that sets the process in motion (the spark that sees the state beginning to expose itself to competition)? Here I will get a bit controversial I think from the AC perspective. The idea I have is that the state most likely to begin a transition to Free Market Anarchy is actually what we refer to as a democratic socialist state. Please don't stop reading! Here's the idea:

A.) In order to successfully transition to Free Market Anarchy, the market will have to out compete the state in providing all of its essential roles.

B.) A democratic socialist state would set the "baseline" as high as possible. An AC-land that was achieved from this state would be very strong, because it would have had to out compete a very benevolent-in-name, if inefficient service provider. The state would not be abandoned until the market had succeeded in providing a very high level of utility to its society.

C.) Part of a democratic socialist state are high taxes. High taxes cause discontent, and make political solutions that promise to lower taxes popular. Exposing the state to competition would be likely to both improve services AND lower taxes. It would likely seem very politically attractive in such a society. In a society where the baseline was much lower, or nonexistent in many sectors, it may be extremely difficult to convince the population that LESS state intervention is needed, as the natural impulse when one pays taxes and doesn't see results is to demand that MORE action be taken. In a society where a huge amount of action IS taken, the flaws in this model should be more readily apparent, and the population should be more open to scaling back state intervention, since they feel they are at least getting something for their money, just that what they get is inefficient and corrupt.

D.) Democratic socialist societies tend to favor social spending and cut military spending, preferring more of a containment, isolationist-leaning model. This makes peace much more likely and allows the society to more rationally assess the role of its state. War elicits fears and passions, and causes the population to cling to its state as protector. The state takes advantage of these fears and passions to increase its size and powers of intervention.

Peacetime and a smaller military could likely be a key component to the viability of evolution towards free market anarchy. National defense is perhaps the most difficult hurdle for the market to overcome, given the massive investments put into it using money stolen from citizens. A smaller force makes it more feasible that the market could take over.

E.) A democratic socialist state is likely the only type of state that could ever reach the point of seriously taking on the institution of the corporation in any meaningful way. This actually is one part I feel VERY shaky on... in America the Democratic party is nearly as subservient to corporate interests as the Republicans, BUT at least their political philosophy is more opposed to them in theory. If I understand the AC philosophy correctly, corporations are a problem that must be dealt with somewhere along the line. Perhaps others can provide insight into how this is supposed to happen, but it seems irresponsible to expect anything will be done about it through simple libertarianism. If we tried to progress to AC directly, without taking on the institution of the corporation first, I think the experiment would be doomed. Corporations are just extensions of the state, and in an AC-world that included them, I think they would take over quickly. In fact, they probably salivate at the prospects of such a world, but I think we can do better... and I think that social democracy would be very preferable to corporate ACism.

Thoughts? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Dane S]

Bump.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that the most basic condition for the onset of Free Market Anarchism is the removal of barriers of entry to state monopolized service industries. Private companies must be allowed to compete with the state in offering all its necessary functions: minting, courts, enforcement, defense, roads, parks, penal system, etc. etc. Given the inefficiency of government, private industry would likely be able to out compete it in relatively short order if it had a fair opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the key first occurrence will have to be a balanced budget amendment, as long as the government can spend more than it takes in it can run at a massive loss for a long time, driving away competitors when they try to enter the marketplace (an actual example of how predatory pricing might work? wow).

[ShakeZula06]

Wow, how did I miss this the first time?

First off here's a few ways that some other ACists think the transition could occur. I particularly like the four flag strategy and the black market strategy where the ACist attempts to not leaving paper trails, not use tracable money, private mail drops, anonymous bank accounts and debit cards, etc. The problem with this is that just a small percentage of people doing this doesn't really help that much. In fact the government may even act like it doesn't care because giving publicity to such a movement may increase the ideas support.
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the most basic condition for the onset of Free Market Anarchism is the removal of barriers of entry to state monopolized service industries. Private companies must be allowed to compete with the state in offering all its necessary functions: minting, courts, enforcement, defense, roads, parks, penal system, etc. etc. Given the inefficiency of government, private industry would likely be able to out compete it in relatively short order if it had a fair opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is that currently there is no way to opt out of funding of the state's offerings. For instance there is nothing against making private schools (well, then again this has to be approved by state bureaucrats), private defense, roads or parks, but the state can offer these for "free" (not really free, you just already paid for them). I mean, what kind of demand for private roads are there when the government already decided to make taxpayers pay for all the ones we need? Also, the US mint has declared liberty dollars, a free market created mint, illegal currency.

Although I think that if the state gave the population the ability to opt out of certain services, I agree that the market would outcompete the state.
[ QUOTE ]
AC-land is peculiar in this sense--if it ever manages to exist, it must by the very nature of its existence be an improvement on the state which preceded it in all its aspects, because if it wasn't an improvement, it could have never out competed the state and come to exist. Therefore, only giving the market the opportunity to compete FAIRLY with the state will prove whether or not Free Market Anarchy is viable. If it isn't viable, it won't occur, because it won't out compete the state, BUT the stalled pursuit of it will have performed the extremely useful function of defining categorically what the essential roles of the state are, and eliminating all those that are nonessential (i.e. those that can be better performed by a free market). It's fine to theorize about whether or not AC-land is realistic, but exposing the state to competition is the only true way to test it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Very much agreed. Anarchocapitalism (as opposed to most other societal models that differ from the status quo) is evoultionary, not revoultionary.
[ QUOTE ]
But is it really feasible that a state would voluntarily risk its own power, even its own existence, by exposing itself to competition in the free market?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, have you ever seen an organization give up power voluntarily? Theoretically it's possible, but I don't think very probable. It would require a lot of selfless elected officials, and with rare exceptions like Ron Paul, this seems like a oxymoron unfortunately.