AC question

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like taking a problem, grossly over-simplifying it and then suggesting that in a relatively untried setting solving the problem won't be a problem or that it won't arise at all.

It actually worries me that the AC supporters seem so intent on reducing issues of complexity into extraordinarily simple equations with very clear causes and answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that you have little idea of the scope of what you are arguing against. There are entire literatures covering the private production of law, courts, security, defense, roads, and every other conceivable "public good."

As just one example, there is Ed. Stringham's collection Anarchy and the Law, a nearly 700 page survey of articles examining the production of law on the market:

Table of Contents

1. Introduction—Edward P. Stringham
Section I: Theory of Private Property Anarchism

2. Police, Law, and the Courts—Murray Rothbard
3. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (excerpt)—David Friedman
4. Market for Liberty (excerpt)—Morris and Linda Tannehill
5. Pursuing Justice in a Free Society: Crime Prevention and the Legal Order—Randy Barnett
6. Capitalist Production and the Problem of Public Goods—Hans Hoppe
7. National Defense and the Public-Goods Problem—Jeffrey Rogers Hummel and Don Lavoie
8. Defending a Free Nation—Roderick Long
9. The Myth of the Rule of Law—John Hasnas
Section II: Debate

10. The State—Robert Nozick
11. The Invisible Hand Strikes Back—Roy A. Childs
12. Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State—Murray Rothbard
13. Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand—Roy Childs
14. Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?—Alfred G. Cuzan
15. Law as a Public Good: The Economics of Anarchy—Tyler Cowen
16. Law as a Private Good: A Response to Tyler Cowen on the Economics of Anarchy—David Friedman
17. Rejoinder to David Friedman on the Economics of Anarchy—Tyler Cowen
18. Networks, Law and the Paradox of Cooperation—Bryan Caplan and Edward Stringham
19. Conflict, Cooperation and Competition in Anarchy—Tyler Cowen and Daniel Sutter
20. Conventions: Some Thoughts on the Economics of Ordered Anarchy—Anthony De Jasay
21. Can Anarchy Save Us from Leviathan?—Andrew Rutten
22. Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable—Randall Holcombe
23. Is Government Inevitable? Comment on Holcombe’s Analysis—Peter Leeson and Edward Stringham
Section III: History of Anarchist Thought

24. Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition (excepts)—David Hart
25. Vindication of Natural Society(excerpt)—Edmund Burke
26. The Production of Security—Gustave de Molinari
27. Individualist Anarchism in the United States: The Origins—Murray Rothbard
28. Anarchism and American Traditions—Voltairine de Cleyre
29. On Civil Government—David Lipscomb
30. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (excerpt)—Lysander Spooner
31. Trial by Jury—Lysander Spooner
32. Relation of the State to the Individual—Benjamin Tucker
33. Political and Economic Overview—David Osterfeld
Section IV: Historical Case Studies of Non-Government Law Enforcement

34. Are Public Goods Really Common Pools? Considerations of the Evolution of Policing and Highways in England—Bruce Benson
35. Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law—Joseph Peden
36. Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case—David Friedman
37. The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champagne Fairs—Paul Milgrom, Douglass North, and Barry Weingast
38. Legal Evolution in Primitive Societies—Bruce Benson
39. American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West—Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill
40. Order Without Law (excerpt)—Robert Ellickson

Then there is The Myth of National Defense, Hoppe, containing some 400+ pages of essays on the theory and history of the private production of defense:
[*] The Problem of Security; Historicity of the State and "European Realism" by Luigi Marco Bassani and Carlo Lottieri [*] War, Peace, and the State by Murray N. Rothbard [*] Monarchy and War, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn [*] Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation or Monopoly? by Bertrand Lemennicier [*] Is Democracy More Peaceful than Other Forms of Government? by Gerard Radnitzky [*] Mercenaries, Guerrillas, Militias, and the Defense of Minimal States and Free Societies by Joseph R. Stromberg [*] Privateering and National Defense: Naval Warfare for Private Profit by Larry J. Sechrest [*] The Will to be Free: The Role of Ideology in National Defense by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel [*] National Defense and the Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Clubs by Walter Block [*] Government and the Private Production of Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe [*] Secession and the Production of Defense by Guido Hlsmann

Rothbard's Man, Economy & State, with Power & Market comprises 1400 pages of analysis of the full workings of voluntary markets and the uniformly negative implications of various forms of interventionism.

Walter Block his written numerous articles on private roads:

1 - FREE MARKET TRANSPORTATION: DENATIONALIZING THE ROADS

2 - CONGESTION AND ROAD PRICING

3 - PUBLIC GOODS AND EXTERNALITIES: THE CASE OF ROADS

4 - THEORIES OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

5 - PRIVATE ROADS, COMPETITION, AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AND PRICE CONTROLS

6 - ROAD SOCIALISM

7 - COMPROMISING THE UNCOMPROMISABLE: SPEED LIMITS, PARADES, CIGARETTES

8 - ROADS AND THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE

9 - THE MOTOR VEHICLE BUREAU

10 - PRIVATIZE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS

11 - HOMESTEADING CITY STREETS: AN EXERCISE IN MANAGERIAL THEORY

12 - OVERCOMING DIFFICULTIES IN PRIVATIZING ROADS

13 - TRANSITION TO PRIVATE ROADS

14 - ROADS, BRIDGES, SUNLIGHT, AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

15 - COMMENT ON “ROADS, BRIDGES, SUNLIGHT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY”

16 - ROADS, BRIDGES, SUNLIGHT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY: REPLY TO TULLOCK

17 - WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRAFFIC DEATHS?

18 - OPEN LETTER TO MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

19- ROAD PRIVATIZATION: REJOINDER TO MOHRING

20 - AIDING AND ABETTING ROAD SOCIALISM: THE CASE OF ROBERT POOLE AND THE REASON FOUNDATION

These are just 4 books from a vast literature.

Yet people who have never bothered to read a page about the actual theory, history, and empirics behind market anarchy dismiss the concept out of hand, and accuse anarchists of merely waving their hands and claiming that "oh, the market will just take care of it." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the exact opposite it the case. It is statists who blithely wave their hands about and claim, "The market can't handle it, therefore we need government."

[tame_deuces]

You misunderstand me, I know very well there a tons of works written on this issue, and that is not what I have a problem with.

I'm also educated in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, applied statistics in psychology, organizational theory, statistics and some math - I think I have all the background I need to argue issues of how to run groups/society, and what makes them tick - thank you very much.

This is what I have a problem with:

[ QUOTE ]

Yet people who have never bothered to read a page about the actual theory, history, and empirics behind market anarchy dismiss the concept out of hand, and accuse anarchists of merely waving their hands and claiming that "oh, the market will just take care of it." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the exact opposite it the case. It is statists who blithely wave their hands about and claim, "The market can't handle it, therefore we need government."

[/ QUOTE ]

Gross oversimplifactions used to defend one's viewpoint.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
You misunderstand me, I know very well there a tons of works written on this issue, and that is not what I have a problem with.

I'm also educated in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, applied statistics in psychology, organizational theory, statistics and some math - I think I have all the background I need to argue issues of how to run groups/society

[/ QUOTE ]

As an anarchist I would point out that societies organize themselves, and do not need to be "run."

[ QUOTE ]
, and what makes them tick - thank you very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how much theory have you read on anarchy?

[ QUOTE ]
This is what I have a problem with:

[ QUOTE ]

Yet people who have never bothered to read a page about the actual theory, history, and empirics behind market anarchy dismiss the concept out of hand, and accuse anarchists of merely waving their hands and claiming that "oh, the market will just take care of it." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the exact opposite it the case. It is statists who blithely wave their hands about and claim, "The market can't handle it, therefore we need government."

[/ QUOTE ]

Gross oversimplifactions used to defend one's viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a gross oversimplification. The is the crux of the argument made by many statists. They personally cannot imagine how something could be provided by the market, therefore it can't be provided by the market, and must be provided by government. It's Government of the Gaps. Furthermore, they have no coherent theory to explain exactly how government is supposed to magically provide these "public goods" while magically avoiding the production of public bads. They just assume that it can, does and will, despite the mountains of theory and historical and empirical evidence to the contrary.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
i have a limited understanding of AC, but i have seen it mentioned that stuff will sort itself out. in the third world country where i live, it is widely known the police work as follows:

if you commit a crime, you can pay a fine to not go to jail.

if someone commits a crime against you, tipping the police will help them resolve the issue faster (if at all).

so essentially, law enforcement is a business and you can see that poor people without financial means will get screwed over.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

To re-clarify:

State security and arbitration is not a business; it is in fact the opposite of a business.

For example: try competing with them and see what happens. For example when a state agent tries to kidnap someone because they are trading in goods (drugs, etc), and you try to represent this person and try to prevent the kidnapping, then see how the state deals with competition.

Or: when a state agent tries to extort money from someone for their foreign wars, and you represent someone who does not like to be extorted; see what happens when you try to prevent this.

Or even better: try putting the state on trial for genocide; see what happens.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You misunderstand me, I know very well there a tons of works written on this issue, and that is not what I have a problem with.

I'm also educated in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, applied statistics in psychology, organizational theory, statistics and some math - I think I have all the background I need to argue issues of how to run groups/society

[/ QUOTE ]

As an anarchist I would point out that societies organize themselves, and do not need to be "run."


[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds nice, but it simply doesn't cover the complexities of variables at play in an organization or a society, neither is it always true - organizations can be formed by people who aren't in them who lays down formal rules for their existence.

Even informal organizations will often gravitate into authoritarian leadership simply due to the combined result of individual behavior of the people in them. Even trials in controlled settings will show you how people quickly form simple forms of rulership and informal laws - sometimes even quite formal ones. Actually, it will show you how some personalities actually seeks out authorative leadership.

I guess how will AC deal with the personality traits that leads to a desire for accumulation of power, desire for leadership, desire for rules, sociopathic behavior, organizational destrucive behavior (which can be anything from laziness to violence) or cultural clashes.

I can also tell you right away that there is of yet no organizational theory which can tell you very bombastic how something will go. There are simply so many variables at play, that operationalizing them and making very exact predictions is near impossible - the knowledge of this is simply much to low.

If we are to use empirical evidence, the social-democratic monarchies of scandinavia who I guess must be on the near opposite end of AC shows an extremely low level of corruption, high degrees of efficiency, competitive economics and the highest living standards in the world and are based on equalitarian principles through-and-through, and all are near the top of the political transparency index. This seems to be some solid empirical evidence of what has (of yet) given the best solution.

[ QUOTE ]

This is not a gross oversimplification. The is the crux of the argument made by many statists. They personally cannot imagine how something could be provided by the market, therefore it can't be provided by the market, and must be provided by government. It's Government of the Gaps. Furthermore, they have no coherent theory to explain exactly how government is supposed to magically provide these "public goods" while magically avoiding the production of public bads. They just assume that it can, does and will, despite the mountains of theory and historical and empirical evidence to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, anyone who believes a government leads to no bad should quickly be dismissed, that would be a ridiculous standpoint. I would think most serious debaters should have a more pragmatic standpoint.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like taking a problem, grossly over-simplifying it and then suggesting that in a relatively untried setting solving the problem won't be a problem or that it won't arise at all.

It actually worries me that the AC supporters seem so intent on reducing issues of complexity into extraordinarily simple equations with very clear causes and answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I simplify in posts partly because I don't have the time or inclination to go into detail and partly because I either haven't studied the problem or haven't seen a satisfying solution.

In this case, the claim being made is that government is necessary for law enforcement. I think it is the responsibility of the statists making a positive claim to justify that claim. My goal isn't to say that the government can't handle law enforcement, or even to say that government isn't necessary. It's to refute those who claim that government is necessary - I don't think anyone has sufficient evidence to establish that.

[tame_deuces]

Ah, ok. Then I misunderstood you completely [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, I will have to agree with you then. Laws can certainly exist without an official ruling body. A classic example would be a group of people having some set rules everybody agrees on and an acceptance of those rules being upheld.

Semantically you'd might end up in a debate about what a government was though, many would claim that even having rules to uphold by 'force' (not necessarily violence/incarceration) points to some sort of government in the loosest sense. But as said, that would be semantics, not debate.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time you saw a bouncer in action?

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil, do you really not see the absurdity of this example? Yes, people whose job is to maintain order amongst drunk college types who hang out in a crowded area will often need to be dicks. Point?

[ QUOTE ]
Now remove the police, the laws, and give them guns and power. Does their demeanor improve?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. Or at least, I don't see why it would get any worse. Bouncers are motivated by the fact that they want to keep their job, and their employers are motivated by the fact that they want to please the people who hang out there.

Are you saying bouncers would beat the crap out of their customers if it wasn't for the fear that maybe the cops will come by and arrest them? You have some awfully strange assumptions of what motivates people.

Your bitter attempts to dismiss the theory of AC are pretty cute though, and I look forward to your reply.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil, do you really not see the absurdity of this example? Yes, people whose job is to maintain order amongst drunk college types who hang out in a crowded area will often need to be dicks. Point?

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that you used the example of mall security guards, which are in no way analogous to police and have little opportunity to get out of hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Yup. Or at least, I don't see why it would get any worse. Bouncers are motivated by the fact that they want to keep their job

[/ QUOTE ]

I get all the motivations bit. What you and your ilk don't get is what people do when they think they can get away with things. People are motivated by a lot more than wanting to keep their job. See deuces' post above which covers it well. However,in tricky spot, AC theory relies almost entirely on this profit/efficiency/reputation motive.

For example, one of the offensively retarded arguments used by ACers is that no one will be able to gain monopoly control over an area. Why? (and I kind you not, this is the actual argument) Because as resources become more and more scarce (such as the last portion of a highway, the last dam in an area), the value of that land will go up and up, to the point where it's not profitable to buy it. Therefore, no one can gain monopoly control over an area's roads, water supply, or whatever.

I debunked that insane argument in a post a while back (e.g. intimidation tactics such owner's daughter gets kidnapped - this happens in the real world, btw; several owners voluntarily merge to start a cartel, uneven distribution of wealth causes someone to sell for less than market price, irrational or uninformed owners selling for the wrong price, information distortion and subversion, buyers willing to pay huge price for political control, etc)

Anyway, that's another topic. Do I think that private security could work? Definitely, given the right conditions. Do I think it could work in the tough spots, such as when order breaks down, or where the poor are prevalent, or in a county full of racists/bigots? That's the real key. All this private stuff works brilliantly in an advanced, racially/culturally integrated, educated, middle-upper class type of society. The social ties, means and incentives are strong enough to everything functional. It's where those conditions don't exist that your fairy land goes down the toilet. I and many others consider this self evident, and supported by all of human history.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that you used the example of mall security guards, which are in no way analogous to police and have little opportunity to get out of hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't me. And he was talking about private security in general. It's true that the relative benevolence of private security doesn't mean a whole lot empirically, because (inefficiency aside) the public security deals with the dirtier stuff, and the private guys don't have to worry about it. But the concept is pretty blatant. When you are dealing with people who have a service to provide to people who can voluntarily use a different service, then their motivation will be to treat people well and provide an effective service.



[ QUOTE ]
I get all the motivations bit. What you and your ilk don't get is what people do when they think they can get away with things.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why the motivation to provide effective service is so important.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, one of the offensively retarded arguments used by ACers is that no one will be able to gain monopoly control over an area. Why? (and I kind you not, this is the actual argument) Because as resources become more and more scarce (such as the last portion of a highway, the last dam in an area), the value of that land will go up and up, to the point where it's not profitable to buy it. Therefore, no one can gain monopoly control over an area's roads, water supply, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZOMG monopolies. So since you know you can't argue against the effectiveness of private security, you deflect the issue to some point you think you have (and in fact don't) about an entirely unrelated concept?

Your posts just wreak of insecurity. Seriously. I'm not sure you even believe in what you're saying.

[ QUOTE ]
It's where those conditions don't exist that your fairy land goes down the toilet. I and many others consider this self evident, and supported by all of human history.

[/ QUOTE ]

I KNOW BEST HOW YOU SHOULD BEHAVE! I CAN SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS SYSTEMATICALLY BETTER THAN YOU CAN SOLVE THEM ON YOUR OWN.

Are your posts anything other than a disjointed list of insultingly worded anti-AC talking points? If you want, I can just respond to you with stuff like "what the coercive statists don't understand is that they murder thousands of people every day!!!" or "look at this entirely unrelated thread where I made this awesome argument against this stupid statist and flushed his pipe dream down the toilet."

But, I'd rather just stick to the issue at hand.