If you are an evolutionist . . .

[Borodog]

For anyone that actually is interested, my views are almost entirely Hoppeian on the subject.

Here is a lecture by Hoppe that covers a tremendous amount of ground very quickly, from a fundamental theory of property, through the nature of the state, and the theory of the private production of defense via competitive insurance agencies.

It's pretty much a quick and dirty outline of my entire personal political philosophy, boiled down to the bare essentials. Plus, Hoppe has the coolest German accent you ever did here.

If you aren't willing to give it a listen, that's fine, but please refrain from littering me with your knee-jerk "anarchy lol" comments in the future. If you do listen, I certainly don't expect a one hour lecture to convert you, but if you still think the idea of social order in the absence of a violent monopolist is farcical one the face of it, then we simply don't have anything to talk about.

[Kimbell175113]

[ QUOTE ]

we are no longer subject to natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]
what

[ALawPoker]

We won immunity earlier in the show.

[JMAnon]

I listened to the entire lecture, but I had difficulty paying attention near the end. It seems like little more than rampant, counterfactual speculation to me. Lots of "insurance companies would do this," "arbitrators would do that," "people would probably do this," etc. I do not find that sort of wild-ass guessing persuasive. It is an interesting, elaborate fantasy, and maybe it would work. I am skeptical. Even if we could set up a system like Hoppe describes, I suspect that the insurance companies would quickly degenerate into monopolies either by mergers or by war. All it would take is a charismatic looter at the helm of the most powerful insurance companies. Next thing you know, you have a dictator.

[simplicitus]

Glad Phil is around to make some good points.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I listened to the entire lecture, but I had difficulty paying attention near the end. It seems like little more than rampant, counterfactual speculation to me. Lots of "insurance companies would do this," "arbitrators would do that," "people would probably do this," etc. I do not find that sort of wild-ass guessing persuasive. It is an interesting, elaborate fantasy, and maybe it would work. I am skeptical. Even if we could set up a system like Hoppe describes, I suspect that the insurance companies would quickly degenerate into monopolies either by mergers or by war. All it would take is a charismatic looter at the helm of the most powerful insurance companies. Next thing you know, you have a dictator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strangely, I find your single paragraph, lacking as it is in anything resembling a logical critique of Hoppe's thesis, or any logical support for your assertions, unconvincing.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
Strangely, I find your single paragraph, lacking as it is in anything resembling a logical critique of Hoppe's thesis, or any logical support for your assertions, unconvincing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the logical support for my critique: I don't accept factual assertions about what "would" happen without empirical support. That is especially true when the assertions fly in the face of recorded history and my own personal observations of human behavior and group dynamics.

edit: The support for my suspicion that power would coalesce is history. Groups of ambitious humans have always formed factions and either joined together with other factions or warred until a single faction controlled a geographic region that was small enough for it to defend. There is no reason to think the same wouldn't happen just because you call the factions insurance companies rather than governments.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Strangely, I find your single paragraph, lacking as it is in anything resembling a logical critique of Hoppe's thesis, or any logical support for your assertions, unconvincing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the logical support for my critique: I don't accept factual assertions about what "would" happen without empirical support. That is especially true when the assertions fly in the face of recorded history and my own personal observations of human behavior and group dynamics.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an enormous amount of empitical support, throughout recorded history and today. You simply choose to be willfully ignorant of it. All of the mechanisms proposed by Hoppe are already in existence in one place or another, they are just not allowed to operate as an integrated whole. Private agencies do in fact provide security, in fact they provide the majority of security. Insurance companies already investigate crimes, track down criminal, recover property. Insurance companies already provide discounts for policy holders that reduce the likelihood of a claim. Hence you get a discount on your homeowner's insurance for having a security system, a fire alarm, a safe, etc. Most dispute settlement is already private. Disputes are settled peacefully all the time without an overarching monopolist of decision making whenever there are disputes between citizens of different nations, for example in international business arbitration, which occurs every single day all over the world.

Competition works all around you, but you choose to squeeze your eyes shut, put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA I HAVE TO HAVE GOVERNMENT LALALALALA" as an argument.

[ QUOTE ]
edit: The support for my suspicion that power would coalesce is history. Groups of ambitious humans have always formed factions and either joined together with other factions or warred until a single faction controlled a geographic region that was small enough for it to defend. There is no reason to think the same wouldn't happen just because you call the factions insurance companies rather than governments.

[/ QUOTE ]

The historical conditions conducive to the rise of states are no longer in place, particularly in the west. In a modern industrialized society based on a high degree of the specialization and the division of labor it makes no more sense to have a monopolist of security production than it does to have a monopoly of food production or clothing manufacture. When defense products such as firearms, safes and deadbolts can be had for the price of the product of a couple dozen hours of labor for even society's poorest members, and when there are litterally dozens of competing insurance firms operating in all geographical locations, there are no territorial monopolies beyond the private properties of individuals, nor can any develop.

A prerequisite for this of course is that a lot of people realize the parasitic nature of the state, and stop believing in the myth that it is moral, just, and necessary that a special class of obercitizen must exist that are allowed to commit crimes.

If people stopped believing in God, they'd stop building churches.

[bocablkr]

JM,

Don't worry - you are spot on. In the AC utopia megalomaniacs don't exist. There would never be a Genghis Chan type only Stepford wives [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Historically, power has tended naturally to aggregate into territorial monopolies via war

[/ QUOTE ]

Power has also broken down into smaller units historically,the USSR and China are excellent recent examples of this. Heavy centralization and control frequently leads to fractioning a weakening of power, black markets, the places that exist in violation of these regulations, usually grow in size and scope in step with the growing central power.