AC Already Exists

[XxGodJrxX]

First post in this forum in quite a while.

The ideal Anarcho-Capitalist society that many in this forum dream of already exists. I am not talking about Somalia either. Let me make clear that the examples I use are just that, examples. Please pick apart my arguments, but don't bother being nitty about the examples which I am basically making up as I go along.

First of all, it is necessary to define the levels of individualism that are present. The most basic level of individualism is YOU, a person. Obviously, we are all most concerned with ourselves. We seek individual property and freedoms as our primary concerns. I think most people, aside from hardcore socialist-types, can agree that we are after our own self-interests.

Each person in the United States of America are bound by two different types of government with different powers over us: state and national governments. States, for the sake of my example, serve in the second tier of individualism. Each state has certain powers over each person that resides in said state. I live in Florida, so the legislature of the state of Texas does not have any direct power over me. Like people, states are also interested in increasing their power. All states want to have booming economies, low pollution, high quality of life, etc. Sometimes the interests of various states come into conflict with one another, such as in the Civil war.

The third level is the national level. The United States of America, like the other two levels, desires for what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole. The United States as a whole wants to thrive, accumulate wealth and power, etc. There are, and have been, many occurrences where the interests of the United States have come into conflict with that of other nations. For example, the United States and Mexico once laid claim to the same territory, and a war came out of it. Pretty standard.

The fourth level WOULD be a form of a world government. Obviously, there isn't a world government at the moment. The closest thing to a global authority would be the United Nations, but the United Nations does not have much authority (mainly because the UN does not have it's own military, but that's besides the point for the moment). So we can all agree that a country is the highest practical entity in the world today.

Now, the United States does not have any real authority over Canada, the UK, North Korea, etc. Basically, on a global scale, there is anarchy. When there is a conflict of interests between two nations, there is nothing to stop one nation from destroying the other. Frankly, the only thing that prevents one nation from attempting to attack another anytime there is a conflict is the fear of death. If the USA attacks Russia, for example, an immediate and devastating reprisal can be expected. Also, conducting war costs a lot of money, manpower, and time. Finally, conducting war is not always in the best interest of a nation economically. But, if a nation was to choose to, it can attack any other without having to answer to any higher authority.

The basic principle of AC, the anarchy part, already exists. Now, let's take into account that a nation, fundamentally, is nothing more than a group of people. The state of Florida is made up of borders, but more importantly, the people that reside within those borders. The United States of America is made up of fifty states, and more importantly, the people within its borders.

If nations of the world attack each other all the time, since they have nobody to answer to, what is to make one think that the individual, put into the same conditions, would not do the same thing? A nation is really just a group of people living within borders. There is no reason to think that individuals would not attack each other given the chance.

The concept of voluntarily not attacking each other, even without the presence of government, is absurd. Nations do sometimes voluntarily agree not to attack each other, but only when they realize that it is not in their best interests to fight with each other. Other times, a nation attacks another that is just minding it's own business, because they can (Iraq--->Kuwait, Germany--->Poland, Napoleon--->Spain, etc.) Likewise, if I see my neighbor has a brand new boat, but I can beat him up and take his boat without any consequences, is there a reason that I should not? As long as I have more guns than any people that would care about my neighbor's new boat, I should escape unharmed.

Anarchy already exists on a global scale, that much seems fairly obvious. In my opinion, this global scale anarchy will translate to the individual almost exactly. The difference is: instead of only around 200 countries constantly fighting with each other, 6 billion people would be fighting with each other.

We'd obviously prefer to be as safe as possible, so we group together and form the state. The promise of forming a state is that we collectively protect each other from the dangers that exist. We ensure that if somebody was to attack us, they will be swiftly punished. If a different state was to attack us, we agree to fight them off collectively. This is the most fundamental purpose of government.

Is there any fundamental flaw in my argument that I am missing? As should be obvious to many posters here, my argument is essentially Hobbesian in nature, which the ACists should fundamentally disagree with. My logic should be flawed SOMEWHERE along the way, according to AC; I would like to know where.

[IsaacW]

War is an extremely expensive and inefficient endeavor that can only be funded by taxes coercively by a state.

Certainly there would be squabbles between neighbors and even criminals in a true AC world, but it would be in everyone's best interest to maintain order by only doing business with those who also maintained order. Basically, people wouldn't take as kindly to you stealing your neighbor's boat as you are assuming they would.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
War is an extremely expensive and inefficient endeavor that can only be funded by taxes coercively by a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

More accurtely imo, it's only profitable to those in power if they can get someone else (the taxpayers) to foot the bill while keeping all the spoils for themselves. This is one reason, op, that I doubt individuals will go on the offensive as often as states do. Your characterization of a state as a macro-person, acting as all of its constituents in concert, is not accurate. In a state a few gung-ho individuals can leverage their power to go to war against opponents that their constituents don't really care about, as we've seen.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Anarchy already exists on a global scale, that much seems fairly obvious. In my opinion, this global scale anarchy will translate to the individual almost exactly.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's good enough for the elites, why isn't it good enough for the common man?

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is: instead of only around 200 countries constantly fighting with each other, 6 billion people would be fighting with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many wars has Switzerland been involved in recently?

BTW, what your analysis misses is that "countries" don't go to war. The elites at the top make the decision, and make everyone else pay for it. Individuals, on the other hand, don't have any way to externalize the costs for such violence.

[XxGodJrxX]

History has shown that war can be highly profitable at times. If my family and friends have a lot of guns, we can kill and take the property of a few of my neighbors. Who will stop me? A bigger force will be necessary. What is to stop a bigger force from doing the same thing? What is to stop the BIGGEST force from doing the same thing? Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in the 1930's and nobody did anything about it.

Don't think that war can only be funded by taxes. There have been wars not funded by taxes. During feudalism, people essentially fought as mercenaries. Mob wars are wars not funded by any governments (as far as I know...)

[XxGodJrxX]

I highly disagree with your analysis that a state is not a macro-person. A state is made up of the people within the state. I do agree, however, that within the states, only a few people generally make the decision to go to war. That is besides my point. Your argument that people cannot fight with each other profitably seems counter-intuitive to me. Why can't people fight with each other profitably? There are bullies in schools that beat up smaller kids and take their lunch money everyday. If they don't get in trouble with the law or school, then they may be doing so profitably. War does not always have to be on the huge scale that we have become accustomed to think.

[Nonfiction]

[ QUOTE ]
If my family and friends have a lot of guns, we can kill and take the property of a few of my neighbors. Who will stop me?

[/ QUOTE ] Police? Security guards? The fact that your neighbors also have weapons, meaning that several of your family members or friends may perish? If you are ok with your brother being shot in the head while you attempt to steal your neighbors plasma TV, and then are arrested by the police after, theres not really much anyone can do. But how is that any different than the world is now?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
We'd obviously prefer to be as safe as possible, so we group together and form the state.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you saying the state is a voluntary organization of people?

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We'd obviously prefer to be as safe as possible, so we group together and form the state.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you saying the state is a voluntary organization of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this?


Would you say you're a voluntarist?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
States, for the sake of my example, serve in the second tier of individualism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any type of government is the negation of individualism.
[ QUOTE ]
The third level is the national level. The United States of America, like the other two levels, desires for what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you assume this?
[ QUOTE ]
The basic principle of AC, the anarchy part, already exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Among governments perhaps, but not among individuals.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, let's take into account that a nation, fundamentally, is nothing more than a group of people. The state of Florida is made up of borders, but more importantly, the people that reside within those borders. The United States of America is made up of fifty states, and more importantly, the people within its borders.

[/ QUOTE ]
Government officials have different incentives then people acting in a market.
[ QUOTE ]
If nations of the world attack each other all the time, since they have nobody to answer to, what is to make one think that the individual, put into the same conditions, would not do the same thing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because government officials have different incentives. Government officials can get paid off to go blow up a country and then allow the company it's in bed with to make money off rebuilding it. An obvious example of this is Halliburton and the Iraq War. The money spent on Iraq by taxpayers >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>> Profits war profiteers have made. Halliburton wouldn't have invaded Iraq on their own, they need taxpayers to pass the bill onto. And this is all because a democratic nation's treasury is a tradgedy of the commons.

The rest of your argument rests on the assumption that government officials have the same incentives as individuals, so i'll leave it at that.