A few questions for AC's

[jogger08152]

I recently posed some questions to Borodog about anarchocapitalism. He suggested I ask them on here:

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How do AC's envision police and judicial functions in a society sans government? Particularly, how is corruption to be avoided and/or disincented? Please be as specific as possible.

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How do AC's avoid freeriders in a system of profit-based (inter-"national") defense, specifically if only some of the world converts to AC?

...for instance, suppose I live in Iowa, in a newly-converted-to-AC, USA. I decline to support national defense, correctly reasoning that I can automatically benefit from the people in Minnesota who, unlike me, border a foreign nation. To Minnesota's horror, Canada invades.

...now what? Does AC view it as appropriate to place the entire burden for fighting the war on Minnesota's shoulders, allowing Iowans such as myself to prosper while MN blunts the violence?

...if AC's perspective is that those who do not wish to run this risk should live farther inland from borders, how does AC propose to avoid the annexation of vacant or sparsely populated territory at the "nation"'s border - which in turn would re-present the same problem to individuals living near the new, smaller borders of the AC "state"?

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Who protects intellectual property, and how do they enforce this protection?

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would extremely dangerous materials (EG specimen samples of Ebola or Smallpox, non-microscopic quantities of Tritium, etc.) be prevented from falling into the wrong hands?

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Who enforces contract and tort law? Given that extremely large sums of money can frequently be involved, how is corruption avoided?

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]AC proponents tend to claim that monopolies cannot exist without government. In some cases this is true obviously true, EG national defense in its current form.

...however, what mechanism of AC would prevent "natural" monopolies from forming in highly capital-intensive industries (EG waste-water disposal or newspaper publishing)?

...how about in industries with non-capital related, but still very large barriers to entry, such as computer-OS software-mfr's?

...If no mechanism in AC exists to prevent such organic monopolies, who will handle anti-monopoly enforcement when they do form?

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would international dumping of manufactured goods (and foreign government subsidizing foreign domestic producers) by non-AC nations be prevented, protected against, or counteracted?

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would AC deal with inequities in import/export balance that are the product of deliberate intervention by foreign governments? (This question assumes AC does not require the whole world to convert simultaneously in order to be successful. If this assumption is incorrect, please let me know.)

Thanks and best regards,
Jogger

[Nielsio]

Have you tried www.mises.org ? As a capitalist I favour division of labour, meaning I don't think it's needed to recite everything that's already been covered, here.

[jogger08152]

I've stopped in, but it's pretty extensive. Would you mind linking subpages that address any of those topics specifically, especially pages you're familiar with and comfortable defending?

Thanks,
Jogger

[pvn]

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. If there were in fact knowable "correct" answers, that would be the ultimate argument against AC.

But anyway...

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How do AC's envision police and judicial functions in a society sans government? Particularly, how is corruption to be avoided and/or disincented? Please be as specific as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corruption is enabled precisely through monopolization. You don't have any alternative to state police/courts/etc, so these providers don't have to worry about you taking your business elsewhere.

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How do AC's avoid freeriders in a system of profit-based (inter-"national") defense, specifically if only some of the world converts to AC?

...for instance, suppose I live in Iowa, in a newly-converted-to-AC, USA. I decline to support national defense, correctly reasoning that I can automatically benefit from the people in Minnesota who, unlike me, border a foreign nation. To Minnesota's horror, Canada invades.

...now what? Does AC view it as appropriate to place the entire burden for fighting the war on Minnesota's shoulders, allowing Iowans such as myself to prosper while MN blunts the violence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now what? Here's what: Canada's forces get bogged down in a quagmire of guerilla warfare. With no central government to attack, what's the strategy? Just burn down every farmhouse in the area?

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Who protects intellectual property, and how do they enforce this protection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those who want it protected... if it's even property. The fact that you have to differentiate it from real property should be a clue.

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would extremely dangerous materials (EG specimen samples of Ebola or Smallpox, non-microscopic quantities of Tritium, etc.) be prevented from falling into the wrong hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this prevented now? Those who hold them will protect their stocks.

Interestingly, the biggest warmongers on the face of the earth have the largest stockpiles of these agents, so it seems whatever mechanism is in place now is a total failure.

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Who enforces contract and tort law? Given that extremely large sums of money can frequently be involved, how is corruption avoided?

[/ QUOTE ]

How does corruption *occur*?

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]AC proponents tend to claim that monopolies cannot exist without government. In some cases this is true obviously true, EG national defense in its current form.

...however, what mechanism of AC would prevent "natural" monopolies from forming in highly capital-intensive industries (EG waste-water disposal or newspaper publishing)?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no "mechanisms of AC". That's the whole point. What mechanism of AC prevents people from travelling faster than light? None! But it doesn't matter, because they can't do this anyway. How does a monopoly form in "newspaper publishing"??? Who's going to stop me from printing a newspaper?

[ QUOTE ]
...how about in industries with non-capital related, but still very large barriers to entry, such as computer-OS software-mfr's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? This market has one of the LOWEST barriers to entry. Distribution is basically free. There's no manufacturing costs. One of the biggest competitors in this field was started by a student with outdated computer gear.

[ QUOTE ]
...If no mechanism in AC exists to prevent such organic monopolies, who will handle anti-monopoly enforcement when they do form?

[/ QUOTE ]

What needs to be "handled", exactly? IF one of these "organic" monopolies develops, what should be done? It seems that the state response is merely to "bless" the monopolist and give it free reign. But if it's really a "natural" monopoly, wouldn't that happen, uh, naturally? So what's the idea here?

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would international dumping of manufactured goods (and foreign government subsidizing foreign domestic producers) by non-AC nations be prevented, protected against, or counteracted?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the problem here? Cheap stuff? OH NOES!

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would AC deal with inequities in import/export balance that are the product of deliberate intervention by foreign governments? (This question assumes AC does not require the whole world to convert simultaneously in order to be successful. If this assumption is incorrect, please let me know.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a problem here, either. I'm not really sure what kind of scenario you're envisioning, though, so maybe give some more detail.

[ShakeZula06]

AC is simply individuals voluntarily solving problems without the use of a coercize territorial monoplist. If people see a problem, they use the free market to solve the problem rather then government, and the market has a much better track record then the government at providing solutions (although the government does create more problems, it has that going for them).

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would international dumping of manufactured goods (and foreign government subsidizing foreign domestic producers) by non-AC nations be prevented, protected against, or counteracted?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the problem here? Cheap stuff? OH NOES!

[/ QUOTE ]


That one is one of the funniest problems that people come up with and that we get to answer. I really love giving the answer to it. The last time someone raised this question to me was that China was exporting cheap goods to Iraq and that this was somehow a problem.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the answers to any of these questions. If there were in fact knowable "correct" answers, that would be the ultimate argument against AC.

But anyway...

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How do AC's avoid freeriders in a system of profit-based (inter-"national") defense, specifically if only some of the world converts to AC?

...for instance, suppose I live in Iowa, in a newly-converted-to-AC, USA. I decline to support national defense, correctly reasoning that I can automatically benefit from the people in Minnesota who, unlike me, border a foreign nation. To Minnesota's horror, Canada invades.

...now what? Does AC view it as appropriate to place the entire burden for fighting the war on Minnesota's shoulders, allowing Iowans such as myself to prosper while MN blunts the violence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now what? Here's what: Canada's forces get bogged down in a quagmire of guerilla warfare. With no central government to attack, what's the strategy? Just burn down every farmhouse in the area?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, same principle as the Minnesotans used against the Indians who inhabited the land before the current folks got there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Who protects intellectual property, and how do they enforce this protection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those who want it protected... if it's even property. The fact that you have to differentiate it from real property should be a clue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Eliminating intellectual property protection would disincent people from making it. Why build Diablo III if you aren't going to get paid for it? Thus I think the importance of IP is manifest.

You said those who want it protected should enforce that desire; my reply would be that everybody who isn't a pirate ought to want it protected, since without it, enormously important advances would both happen less frequently and be brought to market less frequently (advances like Windows, penicillin, Metallica's latest album, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would extremely dangerous materials (EG specimen samples of Ebola or Smallpox, non-microscopic quantities of Tritium, etc.) be prevented from falling into the wrong hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this prevented now?

[/ QUOTE ]
The government forces the holders to protect them, and often prohibits their sale to undesirables, even when that sale could bring a profit to the current holder.

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, the biggest warmongers on the face of the earth have the largest stockpiles of these agents, so it seems whatever mechanism is in place now is a total failure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not true, but not relevant either.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Who enforces contract and tort law? Given that extremely large sums of money can frequently be involved, how is corruption avoided?

[/ QUOTE ]

How does corruption *occur*?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's an example: You start a kangaroo court that offers any verdict I want, for a price of 40% of the proceeds. I choose your court to bring suit against McDonalds for making me fat.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]AC proponents tend to claim that monopolies cannot exist without government. In some cases this is true obviously true, EG national defense in its current form.

...however, what mechanism of AC would prevent "natural" monopolies from forming in highly capital-intensive industries (EG waste-water disposal or newspaper publishing)?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no "mechanisms of AC". That's the whole point. What mechanism of AC prevents people from travelling faster than light? None! But it doesn't matter, because they can't do this anyway. How does a monopoly form in "newspaper publishing"??? Who's going to stop me from printing a newspaper?


[/ QUOTE ]
I wrote a somewhat detailed answer to this in SMP. I'll just c/p it here:

"...virtually all small and medium-sized cities in the US became single-newspaper towns sometime after the 50's. Here's why I think this happened:
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]The competition for readership and advertising revenues is cutthroat when there are multiple papers, but as soon as one predominates, the advertisers rush to that paper because of its higher circulation.
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Immediately, consumers rush to this same paper because of the combination of its extra ads (Newspaper readers like both the advertising itself, I assume because of the coupons) and the larger news hole that the extra ad revenues will support.
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Soon after, the paper(s) with falling readership collapse, because falling circulation and advertising revenues cannot be offset by reduced costs (remember: newspapers are inherently capital-intensive),
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Result: the victor gains a monopoly which is extremely difficult - in practice, probably impossible, at least as far as other print media goes - to break.
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Finally the endgame: once the monopoly is established, the surviving paper raises advertising prices (which has the incidental effect of driving up costs of products as these increased ad costs are often passed along to the consumer), newsstand and subscription prices go up (why not? we're the only game in town!), and the consumer reaps all the "benefits" of being on the receiving end of a fairly standard monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...how about in industries with non-capital related, but still very large barriers to entry, such as computer-OS software-mfr's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? This market has one of the LOWEST barriers to entry. Distribution is basically free. There's no manufacturing costs. One of the biggest competitors in this field was started by a student with outdated computer gear.


[/ QUOTE ]
You're wrong here as well. Yes, it's very easy to write an OS. What's not easy is writing one that can compete. You alluded to Linux, so let's address that:
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Linux is accounted by many to be superior to the various offerings MSFT has put on the market.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Linux is -free-.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Windows, not Linux, holds ~92% of total desktop OS market share.

The reason for this, incidentally, is that an OS is useless without software, and non-OS software mfr's generally prefer to invest their money and time writing for the OS that holds the lion's share of the market. This in turn places considerable pressure on consumers to buy the dominant OS, since otherwise it will be difficult and/or expensive to buy useful software for other (non-dominant) OS's to run. You can google "software barrier to entry" or check this link for more info: Moat.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...If no mechanism in AC exists to prevent such organic monopolies, who will handle anti-monopoly enforcement when they do form?

[/ QUOTE ]

What needs to be "handled", exactly? IF one of these "organic" monopolies develops, what should be done? It seems that the state response is merely to "bless" the monopolist and give it free reign. But if it's really a "natural" monopoly, wouldn't that happen, uh, naturally? So what's the idea here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, Federal trustbusters have, at various times, actually busted monopolies. Not always, but sometimes (vis, the breakup of Bell Telephones and the unsuccessful (so far) suit against MSFT).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would international dumping of manufactured goods (and foreign government subsidizing foreign domestic producers) by non-AC nations be prevented, protected against, or counteracted?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the problem here? Cheap stuff? OH NOES!

[/ QUOTE ]
You're off base here, but I'll leave this for another thread because the background is somewhat extensive.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would AC deal with inequities in import/export balance that are the product of deliberate intervention by foreign governments? (This question assumes AC does not require the whole world to convert simultaneously in order to be successful. If this assumption is incorrect, please let me know.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a problem here, either. I'm not really sure what kind of scenario you're envisioning, though, so maybe give some more detail.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'll do this in another thread also, probably combined with the above. This one will get unwieldy otherwise.

[neverforgetlol]

The problem with dumping of course is that it results in more exploited labor overseas. People that really have no legal or union protection from their employers, and are systematically abused by them (which is well documented).

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
AC is simply individuals voluntarily solving problems without the use of a coercize territorial monoplist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US govt isn't a territorial monopolist.

There are over 200 countries around the world owned by different groups of people, and countless smaller territories owned by individuals or non-govt entities. And many territories still not owned at all (albeit, you'll need to dress very warm.)

Just because you want to live on a territory already owned by one group of peopple does not mean there are no competitors or that you couldn't buy your own territory if you could meet the price.

To say the govt is a territorial monopolist because you can't own the land you happen to want to live on individually is the same as saying that Walmart is a monopolist because I want to live where Walmart has a parking lot and they won't sell it to me.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How do AC's envision police and judicial functions in a society sans government? Particularly, how is corruption to be avoided and/or disincented? Please be as specific as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
&
[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Who enforces contract and tort law? Given that extremely large sums of money can frequently be involved, how is corruption avoided?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.freedomainradio.com/freed...isten-In-1.htm
Show numbers 1, 2 & 3

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How do AC's avoid freeriders in a system of profit-based (inter-"national") defense, specifically if only some of the world converts to AC?

...for instance, suppose I live in Iowa, in a newly-converted-to-AC, USA. I decline to support national defense, correctly reasoning that I can automatically benefit from the people in Minnesota who, unlike me, border a foreign nation. To Minnesota's horror, Canada invades.

...now what? Does AC view it as appropriate to place the entire burden for fighting the war on Minnesota's shoulders, allowing Iowans such as myself to prosper while MN blunts the violence?

...if AC's perspective is that those who do not wish to run this risk should live farther inland from borders, how does AC propose to avoid the annexation of vacant or sparsely populated territory at the "nation"'s border - which in turn would re-present the same problem to individuals living near the new, smaller borders of the AC "state"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe - The Origin and Nature of International Conflict
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5911&hl=nl

[ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]AC proponents tend to claim that monopolies cannot exist without government. In some cases this is true obviously true, EG national defense in its current form.

...however, what mechanism of AC would prevent "natural" monopolies from forming in highly capital-intensive industries (EG waste-water disposal or newspaper publishing)?

...how about in industries with non-capital related, but still very large barriers to entry, such as computer-OS software-mfr's?

...If no mechanism in AC exists to prevent such organic monopolies, who will handle anti-monopoly enforcement when they do form?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas DiLorenzo - Protectionist Origins of Antitrust

Part 1/2
http://one.revver.com/watch/85938/fo...ffiliate/34890

Part 2/2
http://one.revver.com/watch/85998/fo...ffiliate/34890


EDIT (forgot):

Thomas DiLorenzo - The Myth of Natural Monopoly

Part 1/2
http://media.revver.com/broadcast/86176/video.mov

Part 2/2
http://media.revver.com/broadcast/86177/video.mov

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would international dumping of manufactured goods (and foreign government subsidizing foreign domestic producers) by non-AC nations be prevented, protected against, or counteracted?

[/ QUOTE ]
&
[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]How would AC deal with inequities in import/export balance that are the product of deliberate intervention by foreign governments? (This question assumes AC does not require the whole world to convert simultaneously in order to be successful. If this assumption is incorrect, please let me know.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Robert Murphy - Five Most Common Myths about International Trade
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2726&hl=nl


[ QUOTE ]
Thanks and best regards,
Jogger

[/ QUOTE ]

Enjoy the shows. I know I did.


PS: You can find all videos I linked on my blog, the url of which can be found in my 2+2 profile.