AC and power

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Umm, it's voluntary, you can stop doing service with some protection agency if you don't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you will still need protection, so its not really voluntary is it. In fact it's not unlike a tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it really is voluntary. And even if you personally feel like you just have to buy protection, you still have a voluntary choice between different providers.

[/ QUOTE ]

But using a protection service itself is not voluntary, unless the person is a complete idiot or has lots of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is, it may be that the two choices are both unplesant (or one is very unplesant so you don't want to look at it as 'a choice') and you would rather not have to be in the postion to choose one or the other, but that does not mean you don't have a choice.

It's your choice, clean your room or you can't go to the movies.

I can't believe your making me clean my room! I can't believe you won't let me go to the movies!

Unless there is a gun to your head, then and there in that moment you ALWAYS have a choice.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Umm, it's voluntary, you can stop doing service with some protection agency if you don't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you will still need protection, so its not really voluntary is it. In fact it's not unlike a tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it really is voluntary. And even if you personally feel like you just have to buy protection, you still have a voluntary choice between different providers.

[/ QUOTE ]

But using a protection service itself is not voluntary, unless the person is a complete idiot or has lots of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is, it may be that the two choices are both unplesant (or one is very unplesant so you don't want to look at it as 'a choice') and you would rather not have to be in the postion to choose one or the other, but that does not mean you don't have a choice.

It's your choice, clean your room or you can't go to the movies.

I can't believe your making me clean my room! I can't believe you won't let me go to the movies!

Unless there is a gun to your head, then and there in that moment you ALWAYS have a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can always refuse to pay your taxes and accept the consequences.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Umm, it's voluntary, you can stop doing service with some protection agency if you don't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you will still need protection, so its not really voluntary is it. In fact it's not unlike a tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it really is voluntary. And even if you personally feel like you just have to buy protection, you still have a voluntary choice between different providers.

[/ QUOTE ]

But using a protection service itself is not voluntary, unless the person is a complete idiot or has lots of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is, it may be that the two choices are both unplesant (or one is very unplesant so you don't want to look at it as 'a choice') and you would rather not have to be in the postion to choose one or the other, but that does not mean you don't have a choice.

It's your choice, clean your room or you can't go to the movies.

I can't believe your making me clean my room! I can't believe you won't let me go to the movies!

Unless there is a gun to your head, then and there in that moment you ALWAYS have a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can always refuse to pay your taxes and accept the consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is absolutely correct.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While taxation can be used to externalize costs, it is not the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do the people in government pay their own salaries? This is what Boro meant, I think. At the very least the costs of the beauracracies are externalized to the tax payers, regardless of what policies the government inacts.

AFAIK none of the G8 countries have governments that dont engage in some sort of externalization of costs to the benefit of special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that it's impossible for the government to provide beneficial services?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While taxation can be used to externalize costs, it is not the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do the people in government pay their own salaries? This is what Boro meant, I think. At the very least the costs of the beauracracies are externalized to the tax payers, regardless of what policies the government inacts.

AFAIK none of the G8 countries have governments that dont engage in some sort of externalization of costs to the benefit of special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that it's impossible for the government to provide beneficial services?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming it's impossible for Hitler to provide benefitial services?

See how rediculous the question is?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Or maybe I think the circumstances that would lead to a stateless America would be less desirable than other outcomes.

I said a stateless society could POTENTIALLY exist under those circumstances. However, there is no reason that a government could not also be founded on those principles.

This is pretty much SOP for you; any time someone disagrees with you, accuse them of supporting violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets test your assertion:

PVN which color is better blue or yellow?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While taxation can be used to externalize costs, it is not the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do the people in government pay their own salaries? This is what Boro meant, I think. At the very least the costs of the beauracracies are externalized to the tax payers, regardless of what policies the government inacts.

AFAIK none of the G8 countries have governments that dont engage in some sort of externalization of costs to the benefit of special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that it's impossible for the government to provide beneficial services?

[/ QUOTE ]
You love going off on random tangents don't you?

To answer your strawman, maybe, if we had benign ruers rather then normal people who's incentives dictate their decisions.
link

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]

Nobody is going to tell you that their theory of the state includes coercive, illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

And most bullies think their force is legitimate as do most spousal abusers. The forceful act is agreed upon as having happened. Some rationalize the use of force in those situations, i.e. make excuses and blame the victims. These people need to attend violence re educations groups and maybe some statists would benefit from such education as well.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you describe such a beast?

[/ QUOTE ]

Play nice -- I won't call anarchy "such chaos". [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Can this "government" unilaterally create law?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It will have very limited powers. You can argue that it's impossible to limit the growth of government in MinarchyLand, but then one can use your same reasoning to say it's impossible to control the formation of government in ACLand.

[ QUOTE ]
Can it tax it's citizens against their will?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could tax for provided services. Depending on how you go about this, you could have some form of limited taxation.

[ QUOTE ]
Can it forceably exclude competition from it's markets?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's markets would basically be to organize a common defense, contract arbitration, and helping care for those who can't care for themselves. It would not need to have a monopoly on any of these roles.

[ QUOTE ]
If you answer "yes" to any of these, then it initiates force against its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could have an institution wherein living under this structure would be a compact between you and your fellow citizens. If you choose not to take part, you lose access to its services -- so don't expect to use community property like roads, courts, hospitals, etc. Under another construct, you could say "yeah, there's a fee for living in this state, if you don't want to pay it, you are free to leave."

[ QUOTE ]
If you answered "no" to all of them then it is not a government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if people agree on a common framework to live under, elect representatives to carry out the designated duties under this framework, and are represented by this institution in discussions with other states, it sure smells like a government, although I admit it is almost like a company. But that's just semantics anyway, the point is that you can have a single institution responsible for certain designated duties carried out by designated members. Essentially living in my state is like living under a corporate structure with a limited board of directors chosen by its members to fulfill limited responsibilities ... and you are free to choose another corporate structure if you'd prefer, just not on my state's property (within its borders).

If you really believe in ACLand, then my state could be a stepping stone to that society. Frankly, I see no way from getting from today to ACLand without a minarchist state in between, one which eventually people decide to get rid of as unnecessary. Or maybe they determine it works just fine and leave it there. Either way, it is a state which ACists and libertarians should both be moving towards. Let's keep moving towards more freedom and worry about when we stop progressing once we're a lot farther along than we are today.

[hmkpoker]

xorbie:

You raise an excellent point. Private security/defense is one of the most confusing concepts in Austrian theory (in fact, this is what kept me from drinking the Kool-Aid for quite a while). You have to look at it from a bit of a game theory perspective.

Let's consider a few things here.

- Defense is less costly than offense. This should seem obvious; it is generally easier to defend one's property than it is to attack one's property. I suppose you could call this a "home field advantage" or something.

- Defense is higher in demand than offense. I think it is fair to say that far more people are willing to pay for defensive services (security guards, alarm systems, nightclub bouncers, bodyguards) than offensive services (contract killers, thugs, raids). This is just common sense; the need for people to be sade is much, much greater than the need for people to kill others.

- It is easier to acquire goods through trade than it is through aggression. This becomes increasingly true as productive capital becomes more abundant.

- Paying for damages is not profitable for an insurance company. GEICO doesn't want me getting into another car accident, I'm sure. Nor do I want to be in another car accident. Even though that's the only way for me to "reap the benefit" of my investment, it's still bad for me. I would much prefer to simply continue paying for my insurance and not have an accident than to pay and have an accident. Security is quite similar; no one with a home security system sits around hoping that a thug comes along so the system can catch him. And insurance/security companies know that.

Now put all these together. Where is the money going to be made in the aggression market? It's going to go toward defense and security. That's simply where the demand is; in a free market, people want to feel safe more than they want to harm others. So you have big private defensive security firms raking in tons of dough to protect their clients.

So what happens when these private security companies, who have all the money and power decide to go to war with one another to gain market dominance? Surely we should realize that this is pathological. Why would any successful business want to spend their own private assets on a war? It's ridiculous. The cost is enormous, the expectation negative, and the resolution unlikely at best. Any reasonable company would want to settle disputes (should, for example, the terms of different companies' services conflict with each other) with lawyers and fine print.

The only profitable outcome that could possibly be selected is a stand-off; the businesses agree to defend their clients, and not offer highly aggressive services (like contract killing), for fear of loss by the defense of the competitor (who also doesn't want to deal with such a problem). I have a feeling that any business not in agreement with this naturally-selected inevitability would be destroyed immediately; he poses a threat to the profits of everyone at the table, and terminating such threats is their job.



Even if you don't buy this, you have to admit: it is unreasonable to argue against a policy that could lead to an unbalanced centralization of force, and offer as an alternative an unbalanced centralization of force where the directors of the violence aren't even accountable to their own funds. With nothing at stake, standoffs that should be peace in a free society are cold wars. And with nothing at stake, this centralization of power has been the cause of every war in at least the last hundred years. How exactly is that the better alternative?