Continuing the philosophical discussion started in the "The ushers have gone TOO far" thread...

DeltaOne81

krose
But the inability or unwillingness to pay is only one of the two key issues here. The other half is that theft is always wrong. And taxation is morally equivalent to theft (among other things). Just because you need something doesn't mean that I am morally obligated to pay for it, and yet I am forced to because the government has threatened to throw me in jail if I don't.

This is where you're basically going to split with most others here, and where there basically is no particular bridge to compromise or agreement.

There was never any question in my mind that this was the source of the conflict, because I run into this all the time when arguing Austrian economics and anti-government positions with people.

My ultimate point in arguing with people about these things is very simple: I want to make it as clear as possible that you need to commit an immoral act---robbery (in retrospect, "theft" isn't precise enough)---in order to make socialism work. If you're okay with that, then fine; you're entitled to your opinion. But I want you to recognize and admit that you are actively supporting robbery.

It doesn't matter whether the robber is some thug off the street or the thugs armed by a government elected by the majority, robbery is always wrong. You can couch it in all sorts of flowery euphemisms about social contracts and the responsibility of society, but it is still robbery, which is an immoral act performed under threat of violence.

Cheers,
Kyle

First, liberalism is not socialism. Please don't play that game. Its one step from calling liberals commies. No one here is suggesting community forced ownership of all business and industry.

What you're talking about is social capitalism. The negative term for which may be welfare state. Or in technical economic terms, redistribution of wealth. None of which are 'socialism.'


<I>My ultimate point in arguing with people about these things is very simple: I want to make it as clear as possible that you need to commit an immoral act---robbery (in retrospect, "theft" isn't precise enough)---in order to make socialism work</I>

I know what you're saying, but I can't agree. I do think its important to realize that its not the government's money - I consider myself economically moderate too. But taxation is the knowing agreement that you enter into by taking part in the benefits of the society. Don't wanna pay US taxes, fine, move somewhere else. Heck, go live on an island and farm for yourself, and barter, and you won't have to pay a dime of tax probably. Its your membership dues. Take it or leave it, but you do have the choice.

I could get technical and say that robbery, by definition, is an illegal activity. And since its legal, it can't be robbery. But that'd be semantics.


Again, unfortunately, your point is entirely impractical. You can't have a government without taxes, and you can't have a reasonable society without a government - sorry, I don't buy it. The price of no taxes would be murder, mayhem, and regular robbery of your possessions by various others. And low taxes has their price too, to a lesser extent.


Anyway, I fundamentally disagree that taxes are robbery - its your membership fee that you pay for your perfectly free choice to participate in that society. And I just can't buy that its anyway possible to have a society that doesn't have taxes, without paying a much greater price in other ways.

DeltaOne81
First, liberalism is not socialism.

It doesn't matter what word you use to describe it, the meaning is perfectly clear: socialism/(modern) liberalism is the use of politically-acquired labor products of one group for the benefit of others. The meaning of "politically-acquired" in this context comes from Albert Jay Nock:

Nock
There are two general means whereby human beings can satisfy their needs and desires. One is by work -- i.e., by applying labor and capital to natural resources for the production of wealth, or to facilitating the exchange of labor-products. This is called the economic means. The other is by robbery -- i.e., the appropriation of the labor-products of others without compensation. This is called the political means.

I use the term "socialism" because "liberalism" means radically different things depending on era. Nonetheless, my meaning should be clear. If it isn't, please let me know.

What you're talking about is social capitalism.

I have never heard this term. A quick Google search indicates that social capitalism actually refers to capitalism as applied to connections between individuals, and has nothing to do with this discussion.

The negative term for which may be welfare state. Or in technical economic terms, redistribution of wealth. None of which are 'socialism.'

"Welfare statism" might be reasonable, except that it's long. Anyway, as I indicated, my meaning should clear, so regardless of the terms we use, we should both understand precisely what I am talking about.

I know what you're saying, but I can't agree.

So, you disagree that taking my property without my explicit permission under the threat of force is not robbery? I don't recall signing a contract saying the US government is entitled to 30% of what I make, and in return they will give me really shitty protection, a few other services that would be better handled privately, a tiny amount that is actually useful and maybe even more efficiently handled publicly, and throw the rest of my money at special interests or straight down the toilet; and despite this lack of contract, it is still understood that if I don't pay this ransom, I will be thrown in prison.

As I said in my previous message, you can put all the euphemisms on it that you want. In fact, you covered:

taxation is the knowing agreement

taking part in the benefits of the society

membership dues

and like most people who fail to tell me why exactly taxation isn't robbery, you fall back on the usual "go off and live by yourself" response:

Don't wanna pay US taxes, fine, move somewhere else. Heck, go live on an island and farm for yourself, and barter, and you won't have to pay a dime of tax probably.

as if I actually wanted to do such a thing, or would be permitted to do so without having to continue paying taxes to the IRS. I'd rather fix what we have here than abandon it: I'm simply unwilling to say that all is lost and give up all my positive private arrangements in the process (i.e., baby and bathwater).

You go on to claim that

your point is entirely impractical. You can't have a government without taxes, and you can't have a reasonable society without a government - sorry, I don't buy it.

but you fail to show why. In fact, many people much smarter than you or I have shown that

The price of no taxes would be murder, mayhem, and regular robbery of your possessions by various others

is simply not a supportable assertion. You can claim it all you want, but you have presented zero evidence that this is the case. And even were it true, you have yet to show how such a notion makes robbery any less immoral.

But I think we are going in circles here.

Cheers,
Kyle

Nock
There are two general means whereby human beings can satisfy their needs and desires. One is by work -- i.e., by applying labor and capital to natural resources for the production of wealth, or to facilitating the exchange of labor-products. This is called the economic means. The other is by robbery -- i.e., the appropriation of the labor-products of others without compensation. This is called the political means.

I dunno, this quote seems to me to be as much a conclusion hidden in a definition as anything else - i.e. political spin. Its fine to have an opinion, but its not really proof of anything.

Some people feel that if the work of numerous others still leaves them poor, hungry, and unable to get ahead... oh well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Others believe that we have an obligation to more than just our own personal wealth.

What you're talking about is social capitalism.

I have never heard this term. A quick Google search indicates that social capitalism actually refers to capitalism as applied to connections between individuals, and has nothing to do with this discussion.

Not sure what Google search you did:
[www.google.com]

4 of the top 6 unique sites on these results talk about what I'm talking about. 1 is kinda related (corporations tackling social issues). And the last is about social connections in the economy.

I know what you're saying, but I can't agree.

So, you disagree that taking my property without my explicit permission under the threat of force is not robbery?

Actually no, I *agree* that its not robbery .

You go on to claim that

your point is entirely impractical. You can't have a government without taxes, and you can't have a reasonable society without a government - sorry, I don't buy it.

but you fail to show why. In fact, many people much smarter than you or I have shown that

The price of no taxes would be murder, mayhem, and regular robbery of your possessions by various others

is simply not a supportable assertion. You can claim it all you want, but you have presented zero evidence that this is the case. And even were it true, you have yet to show how such a notion makes robbery any less immoral.

And you have provided zero evidence on how you could have a society without laws, without rules, without law enforcement, without worker or consumer protections of any kind, without any common social protections, that wouldn't be riddled with violence, revenge, theft, disease, a etc.

I will do a little bit to 'show why'. If you had no taxes, you couldn't have law enforcement that had any substantial resources to combat crime effectively. Theft and violent crime would cause substantial problems. Even if you had volunteer law enforcement, they would not be accountable to anyone - no need for fair justice when they can just take justice in their own hands.

You couldn't have roads that were kept at appropriate levels of repair to facilitate a good economy, or responsible, trained fire departments and equipment to protect against neighborhoods going down in flames.

And if someone did have bad situations, be it fire or job loss or disability, there would be no protection of employment insurance or workers comp to prevent them from plunging into a cycle of poverty. When you have substantial populations who have no home or possessions, you increase the risk or crime, and disease by creating such an underclass. Especially since you have no viable, accountable police force.

This is but the beginning of the problems that I would be inherent in such scenario. It would only work in an utopian world, or in small groups where you can filter who is allowed and have close enough relationships to trust everyone. Much like a commune. Nice idea at heart, but totally impractical.

I bet the majority of those who picked up on the "yep, it's the lending student's responsibility for the cretin who mouthed off and get tossed" side of the argument are some years removed from Cornell. That's the way the legal system works.

You're responsble for what others do when you lend them your car or your hockey ticket.

You can't duck handing them in by saying the JA never notified you. No more than you can say the parking ticket blew off your windshield. You can duck the jury summons that comes in the mail but not the one that comes registered mail.

... by the way, I bet the student who lost the tickets can, by groveling sufficiently, get them reinstated for second semester.

I was fine when the thread drift went towards a topic I was interested in. But your boring debate about libertarianism goes too far! Keep it up, and I may have to print it out and use this page instead of newspapers next time I come up to a hockey game. Hehe.

krose
The other half is that theft is always wrong. And taxation is morally equivalent to theft (among other things). Just because you need something doesn't mean that I am morally obligated to pay for it, and yet I am forced to because the government has threatened to throw me in jail if I don't.

You'll find many people to disagree with that claim. First, do you not use public highways? What about traffic lights? What about the agency that makes you pass a skills test to qualify for your drivers license?

Those are just existing uses of public money for very obviously public benefits. We all benefit from driving on paved roads with traffic lights with tested drivers.

That's just one of the examples of the government collecting taxes and redistributing that money for the public good, which by and large I think it aims to do with the rest of its collected money. Collect it, spend it on projects which will help the public the best.

What about the safety classes that were proposed to be a requirement to own a private firearm? Who will teach those classes, who will keep these records. Some effort will have to go into compilig those records so that records are accurate for the next time someone wants to buy a Tec-9 or a Streetsweeper or whatever gun they want, they'll have it noted that you already took your safety course. Who will pay for those classes? Who will maintain that database? How will it communicate with the other 49 states and their databases? Someone has to pay for it.

All of these questions are valid and raise my point: the goverment esists (in a small part of the total goal of government) to provide common services for the public's benefit; of which transportation methods (highways, traffic signage, etc) and this firearm safety class that's been proposed. Should the government get involved in this? It would obviously benefit the public to have every gun owner taught proper handling and safety training. Sounds like it would fit under "public's benefits."

How about Fire Departments and EMS? We're not even going to get into schooling.... that's a clusterfuck any way it goes. What about tunnels and bridges and damns? All of these services are provided to everyone, and thus you pay taxes. That seems to me what the "dues" are, the cover charge if you will.

By benefitting from all of these public services (I be you'd lose count at how many times the goverment has provided you a service in a single day of life), can you still claim that taxes are robbery? I have more to say but it's getting late... we can banter tomorrow.

mttgrmm
can you still claim that taxes are robbery? I have more to say but it's getting late... we can banter tomorrow.

Of course he can, because he's made it into an axiom basically. Its true because its true.

Nevermind that it still seems completely unfathomable how you could possibly have a safe, functional society without a government, and the inevitable tax collection associated with it. Even the father of the 'natural rights' argument that forms the base of much of what Kyle has shared said as much.

mttgrmm
(I bet you'd lose count at how many times the government has provided you a service in a single day of life)

Which reminds me of this (second post):
[interestingtimes.blogspot.com]

DeltaOne81

mttgrmm
(I bet you'd lose count at how many times the government has provided you a service in a single day of life)

Which reminds me of this (second post):
[interestingtimes.blogspot.com]

Cute, if overly simplistic.

DeltaOne81
I dunno, this quote seems to me to be as much a conclusion hidden in a definition as anything else - i.e. political spin. Its fine to have an opinion, but its not really proof of anything.

Do you disagree with his definition?

Some people feel that if the work of numerous others still leaves them poor, hungry, and unable to get ahead... oh well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Others believe that we have an obligation to more than just our own personal wealth.

You can feel you have an obligation to more than just your own personal wealth and not violate my right to property at the same time: it's called charity. No one is stopping you or me from giving to those in need, but I am saying that you are not entitled to violate my rights by giving away my money, whether you are a lone Robin Hood or an elected welfare state.

I know what you're saying, but I can't agree.

So, you disagree that taking my property without my explicit permission under the threat of force is not robbery?

Actually no, I *agree* that its not robbery .

Good catch. But seriously...

Note the dictionary definition of robbery: "The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation."

You think that "unlawfully" provides an exception for elected bodies to take your property by the use of violence or intimidation, but I ask you: If 51% of the people want to strip you of X% of your income or possessions, at what X does the legislation enacted to allow this suddenly become unlawful? And at that point are you not admitting that "lawful" doesn't simply mean "what the majority wants"? Or would you simply say, "The people have spoken"? Please, pin down an X at which taxation suddenly qualifies as robbery.

I say that all takings are unlawful because I do not recognize the legitimacy of governments to violate my natural right to property. Until recently, "law" was understood to be equivalent to "natural law," and laws were discovered not "passed". Nowadays, "law" seems to mean "positive law" or "legislation," and these "laws" are whatever we decide they are, because people want to be lawful yet natural law does not permit the sorts of rights violations we routinely accept.

And you have provided zero evidence on how you could have a society without laws, without rules, without law enforcement, without worker or consumer protections of any kind, without any common social protections, that wouldn't be riddled with violence, revenge, theft, disease, a etc.

This is where reading Hoppe's book would be helpful, because I simply can't adequately summarize it into a few paragraphs. (I have plenty of perspective about how a democratic society works, but you have zero on how an anarchic society would work, which I consider a failure of the education system... but that's another story.)

What services does government provide that people cannot provide for themselves through private contracts?

Certainly not roads: there's no reason roads cannot be privately owned and maintained.

Certainly not local security: lots of people contract for security through private security companies. Gated communities are a good example of this.

Certainly not insurance: all forms of insurance---SS (insurance against living too long), short-term unemployment insurance, welfare (long-term unemployment insurance), health insurance---can be provided privately.

The only interesting category comprises non-exclusionary services, like national defense, because here it's simply harder to see how it would work.

... Unfortunately at this point I need to go to work, so I'll try to continue this later. Just a few additional brief replies:

I will do a little bit to 'show why'. If you had no taxes, you couldn't have law enforcement that had any substantial resources to combat crime effectively.

False. People can contract for security privately. Why are publicly-funded police irreplaceable?

Even if you had volunteer law enforcement, they would not be accountable to anyone - no need for fair justice when they can just take justice in their own hands.

False dichotomy: there are more options than paid, public police and unpaid police unaccountable to anyone.

You couldn't have roads that were kept at appropriate levels of repair to facilitate a good economy,

LOL... wow, I can't believe you really believe this. Ever notice that only government expects us to put up with inconvenience and inefficiency and still pay a premium for it? Public roads are terribly run: consumers don't get what they want (e.g., higher or lower speeds, more safety, less congestion, peak pricing, the ability to safely drive home drunk at 2am), the maintainers don't care about inconveniencing people (e.g., traffic caused by rush-hour construction, toll booths every 2 miles, poor designs leading to congestion), yet you are conditioned to believe that there is no better way to run the roads.

Tell me why roads cannot be paid for privately.

or responsible, trained fire departments and equipment to protect against neighborhoods going down in flames.

See "insurance."

And if someone did have bad situations, be it fire or job loss or disability, there would be no protection of employment insurance or workers comp to prevent them from plunging into a cycle of poverty.

See "insurance."

When you have substantial populations who have no home or possessions, you increase the risk or crime, and disease by creating such an underclass. Especially since you have no viable, accountable police force.

Everything you said here is based on faulty assumptions I noted above. First, imagine that all property---that means everything, including the roads---are privately owned and that private owners had access to privately-contracted security of a more or less unlimited degree through local insurers and reinsurers acting as private security contractors. Play devil's advocate for a moment and tell me how petty crime would be less of an issue.

Cheers,
Kyle

The problem is, Kyle, that your system much more strongly favors those with means. They'll get more means, at a faster rate than they currently do and without any checks. Poor people simply will not be able to afford things like a private fire department, and so when their house burns down, nobody will stop it. This system has been tried before, and that was the result. If your response to that is "tough cookies for them, at least everyone's property rights are intact" I'd say you're being too cold. If your response is that private charities will provide these people with all the things they need -- transportation, fire departments, police departments, insurances of the various kind you mentioned, etc etc etc -- I'd say you're giving individuals' altruism much too much credit.

Those at the top end of society will always be taken care of. Governments help make sure that the rest don't get trampled too badly. They're not perfect, but they're better than not having that safety net at all.

krose
Everything you said here is based on faulty assumptions I noted above. First, imagine that all property---that means everything, including the roads---are privately owned and that private owners had access to privately-contracted security of a more or less unlimited degree through local insurers and reinsurers acting as private security contractors. Play devil's advocate for a moment and tell me how petty crime would be less of an issue.

Kyle, have you read Snowcrash? Because thats what your proposal reminds me me of.

ftyuv
The problem is, Kyle, that your system much more strongly favors those with means.

Any system favors those with means over those without them: this is basic economics. All you can do is decide where you want to pin the tradeoff between liberty and equality of outcome, and I take the stance that robbery is always wrong, so it should never be done even if it *might* (dubiously) achieve a higher global maximum.

They'll get more means, at a faster rate than they currently do and without any checks.

I fail to see how this is a problem. My creating wealth doesn't make you poorer. My acquiring wealth from you doesn't make you poorer either: if you choose to give me money directly in exchange for something, clearly you feel what you get is worth more to you than the money.

Poor people simply will not be able to afford things like a private fire department, and so when their house burns down, nobody will stop it. This system has been tried before, and that was the result.

I think you may be confusing the advance of technology and market efficiency with a failure of privately-funded security. Just when was a non-public system of fire insurance tried with modern firefighting technology and global markets backing it up?

Those at the top end of society will always be taken care of. Governments help make sure that the rest don't get trampled too badly. They're not perfect, but they're better than not having that safety net at all.

That's all fine and good, but I still do not consent to be robbed. That is the bottom line: no one else has a right to the fruits of my labor.

Under natural law, anyone caught robbing me can be detained by me or my designee until the value is returned. Unfortunately, the government is too large and too powerful for me to detain so I am forced to keep giving it money under coercion. Nonetheless, I do not consent.

So if you are telling me that's too bad and I need to live with it because I have no choice other than changing my name, laundering a bunch of money, going Face/Off, and moving to a foreign country, then you are an accessory to robbery. You can gloss over it any way you'd like, but this system of wealth transfer can exist only when there is the threat of force making people comply.

Cheers,
Kyle

Ben Rocky 04
Kyle, have you read Snowcrash? Because thats what your proposal reminds me me of.

I'm glad you mentioned that: that is exactly the sort of world I imagine would exist in the early stages of private property anarchy. The Diamond Age is set later in the same universe, when things had matured quite a bit. I think that universe is pretty much ideal. I also think it's inevitable, but I still try to do my part in helping it along in whatever way I can.

Neal Stephenson is among my favorite authors. Vernor Vinge and Greg Benford are others.

Cheers,
Kyle

Ok, well I guess I'm an accessory to robbery, then. If you're defining robbery as any instance where one entity forces another to surrender its property, then yes, taxes are robberies, governments are robbers, and anyone who supports them is an accessory.

Of course, in that you consort with all of these robbers and accomplices, and in fact benefit off of the benefits they provide, you're also an accomplice.

There are many evils in the world. I'll take the evil of your narrowly-defined robbery over the evils of the wealthy being completely unchecked and subjugating the poor relentlessly.

And you're right, as far as I know there hasn't been an attempt in a developed country to have privately-funded fire depts (et al.) in ages. That's cause most people recognize that the last time that method was tried, it was horrendous. If you really think a shiny new fire truck will make all the difference, well, I don't know what to say except that I'm not willing to take the (very substantial, imo) risk that you're completely wrong.

I can't believe I'm doing this, since I usually dispise politics and mostly keep my own to myself, but:

For the sake of argument, I'm going to be one person to say that I somewhat see Kyle's POV. I don't currently completely agree with it, for reasons that I'll explain, but I see it.

I'm very much in favor of privately owned roads. That's the no-brainer example, IMO. There has been some interesting developments...such as the privately built and run toll roads in CA (now back under public control: [en.wikipedia.org] ) and the sale of the Indiana Toll Road. But really, these are more of a public/private partnership model than a fully-blown private highway ownership.

[www.dot.ca.gov]
[www.tfhrc.gov]

And the fact that the USPS has a statutory monopoly on non-urgent mail, outbound international letters, and exclusive rights to mailboxes is somewhat wrong, IMO. Why can't there be a competing postal service?

Now...in the past, I've had what I called "Libertarian leanings." I was always in favor of the smallest government possible. Then Enron happened. And WorldCom. And Adelphia, Tyco, and Qwest, too. Throw in a threat to Amtrak, and the US thumbing its nose in the direction of Kyoto, GE admitting to leaving the Hudson River a toxic mess, and something about Global somethingorother, and I've shifted my position a bit. When money is involved, you generally can't trust people or businesses to do the right thing. The threat of government action is necessary. Obviously, I've headed down the "green" road rather than the "anarchist" road.

And I won't even begin to talk about what the current administration has done to me politically.

Oh, and I was one of those who, after a layoff and my COBRA benefits went away, accepted the responsibility to live without health insurance. It was either food or insurance for me. The job I found to pay the bills didn't offer benefits. Somehow, I survived that period, but accepted the risk. The big stinker was that there exists inexpensive catastrophic insurance, but it was illegal in NYS, which doesn't make sense to me. The "Healthy NY" program hadn't started yet.

OK...that was rambling, and maybe it didn't contribute anything to this discussion, but there ya go.

krose

DeltaOne81
I dunno, this quote seems to me to be as much a conclusion hidden in a definition as anything else - i.e. political spin. Its fine to have an opinion, but its not really proof of anything.

Do you disagree with his definition?

I do, in several ways. First off, as I said, the part you seem to be relying on - that anything other than work is theft - is not a definition. It is a political conclusion disguised as a definition. Its no better than me saying "well, my only choices to vote this year were Democrats or evil. So now let me tell you my political philosophy based on that."

If you want to say that taxes are theft (as you have), fine, make the argument (as you have). But making it axiomatic by turning your opinion into a definition achieves nothing.


Second, yes, I disagree fundamentally. There are other ways that people can achieve the wealth by which they meet their desires. For instance, inheritance and gifts. Yes, this wealth was initially created through work (or whatever), but those that are using it to satisfy their desires have not lifted a finger for it. Second, unearned income - interest, dividends, capital gains - in this case money generates more money. Yes, the initial wealth was generated by work, but the additional amounts are not.

And that's just what I can come up with off the top of my head while I eat my lunch.


The definition is too simplistic - too black and white - and it is created to achieve a support a certain political conclusion. It is not an honest intellectual exercise. To be so it would have acknowledge a much wider range of possibilities - shades of grey - and it would also need to not include value judgments with it.

I know what you're saying, but I can't agree.

So, you disagree that taking my property without my explicit permission under the threat of force is not robbery?

Actually no, I *agree* that its not robbery .

Good catch. But seriously...

Note the dictionary definition of robbery: "The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation."

You think that "unlawfully" provides an exception for elected bodies to take your property by the use of violence or intimidation, but I ask you: If 51% of the people want to strip you of X% of your income or possessions, at what X does the legislation enacted to allow this suddenly become unlawful?

I would agree there's an X% at which it is bad policy. At which it is harmful. At which it is immoral. At which all those with substantial income would leave the society. Or a variety of other bad things. I would pin no percent - nor say that there fundamentally even is a percent - at which is becomes robbery.

I say that all takings are unlawful because I do not recognize the legitimacy of governments to violate my natural right to property.

Fine, but you're trying to create an axiom again. "Its robbery because I don't recognize it as not being such." While, you're entitled to your opinion, that's all it is, and I will continue to disagree.

And you have provided zero evidence on how you could have a society without laws, without rules, without law enforcement, without worker or consumer protections of any kind, without any common social protections, that wouldn't be riddled with violence, revenge, theft, disease, a etc.

This is where reading Hoppe's book would be helpful, because I simply can't adequately summarize it into a few paragraphs...

What services does government provide that people cannot provide for themselves through private contracts?

Certainly not roads: there's no reason roads cannot be privately owned and maintained.

Basic economics would say it wouldn't be. Primarily game theory. You have a choice to contribute to maintain roads sufficient or not. So does everyone else.

If other people chose to do so, then your contribution doesn't matter much so you're better off keeping it - your contribution would not provide enough direct benefit to yourself to be worthwhile. If other people don't chose to do so, then your contribution again would not provide enough to make a different for you that's worth that amount of money. Therefore in both situations, a rational person would decide not to contribute. Contributions would be sparse, and roads would fall into disrepair.

I believe in the basic good of people, but I also believe in people basically looking out for their own self-interest - greed, if you will - which I take no issue with, its natural. But it does mean an entirely Laissez-faire economy would fail miserably.

Certainly not local security: lots of people contract for security through private security companies. Gated communities are a good example of this.

Okay, but lets follow this to day 2 through year 20, shall we?

Only the well off would be able to afford such protection (btw, gated communities hardly cover it - we're talking private armed guards and security details). Those who cannot afford it would be unprotected from crime, which would substantially encourage criminal behavior - especially among those who have fallen on hard times already.

So when they did fall upon job loss or such, they would begin robbing from their neighbors who cannot afford security in order to feed themselves and their families. Crime would be rampant in poor neighborhoods. So would injury and death. And since I figure in your society that medical care would not be provided - nor death services - to anyone who couldn't pay for it, disease and dead bodies would likely be common fixtures on those streets.

Likewise, if any epidemic started, it would basically impossible to contain. And if you think that this would only effect those who are poor (cause, too bad for them anyway, right?), it would most certainly end up harming those who live on 'the other side of town' as well. Diseases spread, get into the water supply, etc.


But there's only so much that you can take from those who have little to begin with, right? The logical behavior would be to begin to devise ways to steal from those with better means. Of course since they're probably all protected by armed guards, it would require groups of people working together in order to overwhelm those defense forces and the inhabitants of the houses (who would likely be armed in your society). So what we'd end up with is gangs and organized crime, who would rob houses of those with greater means, and probably kill the guards and occupants at the same time.

Of course, such a situation would make the cost of armed guards astronomically high - if you could find people willing to become them at all. Not to mention the arson associated with these acts would make fire protection very costly. The murder rate would make life and disability insurance exceedingly expensive.

What you'd be left with was rampant violence, if not civil war. And all those taxes you abandoned would be replaced with exceedingly expensive insurance, and, murder.

Now you can say 'fine, so I'd have to pay through the nose for all those services and have put my life and those of my family at substantial risk, but at least I made the choice to live that way.' Great, good for you, just like the rest of us make the choice to life this way every day and every election.

Certainly not insurance: all forms of insurance---SS (insurance against living too long), short-term unemployment insurance, welfare (long-term unemployment insurance), health insurance---can be provided privately.

And all currently are, save SS and unemployment. But again, only certain aspects of society would be able to afford it, leading to more poverty and feeding again into the nightmare scenario above.

LOL... wow, I can't believe you really believe this. Ever notice that only government expects us to put up with inconvenience and inefficiency and still pay a premium for it? Public roads are terribly run:... the maintainers don't care about inconveniencing people (e.g., traffic caused by rush-hour construction... yet you are conditioned to believe that there is no better way to run the roads.

Oh, I believe there are better ways to run the roads. I believe there are problem in the system. I just don't buy for a second that private industry and personal optional payments is in any way one of them.

Reform the current system... sure. Throw the baby out with the bathwater... that's where you lose me.

Btw, I don't believe for a second that 'maintainers don't care about inconveniencing people' due to rush hour construction and the like. In what fantasy world do you life where all construction projects can be completed between 6 PM on Friday and 6 am on Monday? Well, I guess we already know that.

Everything you said here is based on faulty assumptions I noted above. First, imagine that all property---that means everything, including the roads---are privately owned and that private owners had access to privately-contracted security of a more or less unlimited degree through local insurers and reinsurers acting as private security contractors. Play devil's advocate for a moment and tell me how petty crime would be less of an issue.

Do you mean more of an issue? If so, I think I've shown how crime way beyond petty would be much more of an issue.

If you want me to play devils advocate by taking your side, then yes, I certainly see how there could be some modest improvement in corruption and incompetence in certain aspects. All of which be below the level of noise of the effects created on the larger level.

ftyuv
Ok, well I guess I'm an accessory to robbery, then. If you're defining robbery as any instance where one entity forces another to surrender its property, then yes, taxes are robberies, governments are robbers, and anyone who supports them is an accessory.

Admitting the problem is the first step to recovery.

Of course, in that you consort with all of these robbers and accomplices, and in fact benefit off of the benefits they provide, you're also an accomplice.

I don't want to live in this system, but I don't have a realistic choice. I am, however, an advocate of its destruction, so that gives me the edge morally.

There are many evils in the world. I'll take the evil of your narrowly-defined robbery over the evils of the wealthy being completely unchecked and subjugating the poor relentlessly.

You say this, and yet history has repeatedly shown that monopolies not backed up by force (the only real examples being governments and mercantilist arrangements between corporations and governments) always become top-heavy and eventually fall to smaller, more flexible competitors. In other words, they don't stay monopolies for long.

If you really think a shiny new fire truck will make all the difference, well, I don't know what to say except that I'm not willing to take the (very substantial, imo) risk that you're completely wrong.

You set up that straw man, not me. Firefighting technology has improved substantially: firefighters are able to call on new chemicals; they can personally withstand harsher conditions due to improvements in equipment; hydraulic ladders enable them to effectively fight fires more quickly on higher floors; improved communication and faster trucks make deployment more efficient; etc. The days of private fire protection are more than 100 years old, so comparing their efficacy to today's modern fire departments is simply absurd.

Let's play a similar hypothetical guessing game in reverse to illustrate the illogic of your position. If auto manufacturers had been government-owned since 1930, would you similarly argue that private auto manufacturing had been tried and failed? I mean, we have much better safety equipment and higher quality standards now, so clearly the very concept of private car makers must have been the problem, right? Of course that wouldn't be the case, because you know that these things were done in the private sector using the power of the market. I fail to see why the same would not be true of fire protection and other services we currently rely on a government monopoly for.

Cheers,
Kyle

DeltaOne81
a lot of nested stuff

You have to fix the tags to make that opus readable.Nevermind.

ugarte

DeltaOne81
a lot of nested stuff

You have to fix the tags to make that opus readable.Nevermind.

Yeah, sorry, took me a couple edits to get the tags right.

RichH
Then Enron happened.

LLC protection: government and mercantilism.

And WorldCom.

Ditto.

And Adelphia, Tyco, and Qwest, too.

Ditto, ditto, ditto.

Throw in a threat to Amtrak,

Government-run railroad.

and the US thumbing its nose in the direction of Kyoto,

Why not simply hold corporations and their owners liable for their pollution by suing them for damages? If no damages can be demonstrated, then what business do you have telling people what they can and can't do on their own private property?

Get rid of government regulation putting limits on enforcement of natural rights (e.g., the aforementioned LLC and the EPA's virtual monopoly on cases involving environmental protection) and people would be able to organize and demand payment for violation of their right to property.

GE admitting to leaving the Hudson River a toxic mess,

Again, damages. The people who own property on the Hudson River and those who are downstream of it have a pretty easy case to be made... but ridiculous restrictions on class action suits (in fact, the entire class action system) make this all but impossible.

Again, blame mercantilism: the system has evolved to benefit the elite---the politically well-connected and corporations---and since there's a monopoly on justice, you are restricted from enforcing your natural rights when the system inevitably fails to deliver actual justice.

When money is involved, you generally can't trust people or businesses to do the right thing. The threat of government action is necessary.

As I've noted above, mercantilism---not capitalism---is the problem in every single case.

The big stinker was that there exists inexpensive catastrophic insurance, but it was illegal in NYS, which doesn't make sense to me.

Government!

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
Why not simply hold corporations and their owners liable for their pollution by suing them for damages?

So no government but ... courts? With what power of enforcement.

krose

Throw in a threat to Amtrak,

Government-run railroad.

Well, a poorly-run government-subsidized railroad. A well-run system is possible (Metro-North), but that backs into your argument that taxes = theft, which I won't make a novel argument either fer or agin' here.

The mismanagement and misfunding of the entity that currently exists as Amtrak has been downright deplorable and has relegated rail travel as a laughable transportation option in this country. I would love for a third party/private entity to build a dedicated high-speed rail system that works. But that isn't going to happen.

Fred, frankly I can't take it anymore. You make too many statements that are either false dichotomies or unsubstantiated assertions, and then you propose worst-case scenarios without considering the disincentives to those situations ever occurring in the first place.

I know a lot about democracy, socialism, and anarchy, both from life experience and from significant reading and discussions with other people. You know next to nothing about anarchy, and have only straw men to set up against democracy and socialism (or "liberalism" or "social democracy", if you like). It's very hard to have an argument with someone who is ignorant of the basic facts on which these theories rely, because it requires me to spend 25 hours a day explaining things that are better explained by others who have spent a lifetime researching and developing these ideas. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be consdescending; I'm merely being practical given the demands of my job and life. I cannot do all the work, and if you're not interested in learning about this stuff, I wouldn't be able to force feed it to you anyway.

If you're interested in learning about how anarchy could actually work, I refer you to Hoppe's book, or anything written by Murray Rothbard. A few short articles that can start you out are:

What is the free market?
Why abolishing government would not bring chaos
What it means to be an anarcho-capitalist
The gun in the room

These articles can all be read in 10 minutes or less and will give you the tools to answer your questions and refute your imaginary scenarios much better than I can answer or refute them one by one.

Cheers,
Kyle

ugarte

krose
Why not simply hold corporations and their owners liable for their pollution by suing them for damages?

So no government but ... courts? With what power of enforcement.

Imagine courts and judgment enforcement, but without a monopoly on either. A good way to think about it is arbitration and repo-men.

In a natural order, if you are entitled to damages, you take them and then make sure you have enough defense to protect yourself from retaliation; in reality, you let the repo-men hired by your insurance company do the dirty work, but they are going to insist on a neutral judgment in their favor first, and would prefer to handle the transfer amicably rather than violently. Remember that they are obligated to protect you in the event of retaliation, so they have an incentive not to expose themselves to that extra liability if possible.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose

ugarte

krose
Why not simply hold corporations and their owners liable for their pollution by suing them for damages?

So no government but ... courts? With what power of enforcement.

Imagine courts and judgment enforcement, but without a monopoly on either. A good way to think about it is arbitration and repo-men.
In a natural order, if you are entitled to damages, you take them and then make sure you have enough defense to protect yourself from retaliation; in reality, you let the repo-men hired by your insurance company do the dirty work, but they are going to insist on a neutral judgment in their favor first, and would prefer to handle the transfer amicably rather than violently. Remember that they are obligated to protect you in the event of retaliation, so they have an incentive not to expose themselves to that extra liability if possible.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This is all so divorced from any conceivable reality that includes humans that I'm not even going to bother. Let your anarchist society go about repo-ing each other's possessions until either (a) the strongest person has acquired everything by self-proclaiming "damages" from everyone else or (b) the professional repo-men have all of the money because of all of the fees they have obtained by stealing everyone else's stuff back-and-forth.

ugarte
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This is all so divorced from any conceivable reality that includes humans that I'm not even going to bother. Let your anarchist society go about repo-ing each other's possessions until either (a) the strongest person has acquired everything by self-proclaiming "damages" from everyone else or (b) the professional repo-men have all of the money because of all of the fees they have obtained by stealing everyone else's stuff back-and-forth.

As with Fred, you are building a scenario that simply wouldn't occur because there are disincentives to that activity.

Basically, insurance companies representing people in a dispute have an incentive to work together rather than to battle each other: it's expensive to defend against retaliation for repo activity that is viewed by the opposing side as illegitimate. So there's a natural incentive to work together to resolve these disputes in a peaceful way that still accommodates the grievances of the plantiff.

It's similar to war between countries: war is expensive, so for the most part countries settle their disputes in the world court, the UN, or various other structures set up in the anarchy comprising most of the world's nations.

Roy Halliday wrote an interesting essay on libertarian liability law that examines these precise questions and describes in much more detail the disincentives to widespread repo-man activity: [royhalliday.home.mindspring.com]

Cheers,
Kyle

RichH
I would love for a third party/private entity to build a dedicated high-speed rail system that works. But that isn't going to happen.

It might be regulation, but I suspect it simply isn't profitable to build a widespread rail system in a country as sparsely populated as the US. Air travel won for a reason, and it certainly wasn't because the rails haven't been handsomely subsidized by the government for many, many years.

The northeast corridor could actually be profitable if Amtrak weren't so incompetent, but they are used to being able to suck off the teat of government, so instead of improving service to make rail travel an actually appealing alternative to the shuttle, they just whine at Congress for more taxpayer money.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
Fred, frankly I can't take it anymore. You make too many statements that are either false dichotomies or unsubstantiated assertions, and then you propose worst-case scenarios without considering the disincentives to those situations ever occurring in the first place.

I try not to make false dichotomies. I try not to claim that its 'this or that', I know there are a range of options in between.

If you are referring to the game theory bit on roads, game theory in its basic forms unfortunately is only illustrative with a yes or no situation. But that doesn't mean it has to be taken that way. You can replace that scenario with a yes or no choice on each and every dollar - leading to all sort of potential shades of gray. I venture the result is the same.

If you're talking about the latter scenario of lack of law enforcement for the poor, I intended no dichotomy. I realize there are a range of choices available to anyone in those situations. I merely illustrated what one of the options were, that would undoubtedly be one of the options chosen by some number of people. And one that seems to me to be one that would happen a substantial portion, if not a plurality of the time.

I know a lot about democracy, socialism, and anarchy, both from life experience and from significant reading and discussions with other people. You know next to nothing about anarchy, and have only straw men to set up against democracy and socialism (or "liberalism" or "social democracy", if you like).

Sorry, I don't buy the Tom Cruise argument - "I know about this stuff and you don't." I talk politics, I read politics, I've considered many different idea - and have indeed changed my perspective and opinions on this when the facts presented themselves and were convincing.

I do not claim to be an expert on all things, by any means. But I do believe that I am knowledgeable enough for my opinions on things to be reasonable, and my idea on consequences and results to be feasible.


I hate straw men. I hate them when they're used against me, and I hate them always. A straw man is when I take an argument that is not yours, say its yours, and then refute it - i.e. democrats want to raise everyone's taxes and surrender to terrorists.

I feel I did no such thing. You do not agree with my conclusions, fine, but all I did was suppose consequences on the portion of society which could not afford any private law enforcement. I did not claim that you wanted it that way, or that you said they didn't deserve it, or that you hoped they all just killed each other, or some other strawman like that.

All I did was piece together a result of your actual policy proposals. You can disagree with my conclusion, but that is not a strawman. If you feel that at any place I stated as yours an proposal that was not yours, do let me know, and I will apologize for doing so.

I'm merely being practical given the demands of my job and life. I cannot do all the work, and if you're not interested in learning about this stuff, I wouldn't be able to force feed it to you anyway.

...

A few short articles that can start you out are:

What is the free market?
Why abolishing government would not bring chaos
What it means to be an anarcho-capitalist
The gun in the room

I do not have the time or desire to pick up a book after every online discussions I have. So I'm going to have to pass on that.

I did open up the 'why abolishing government would not bring chaos' article - it seemed to be the most appropriately titled. It had a section on law enforcement, which did not even once discuss the consequences of having portions of society that could not afford to pay for such things.

It refuted ideas about corrupt organizations, or practical considerations, or average cost, etc - all of which I am basically willing to buy. But it took no look or consideration of what would happen to those who could afford no protection, and the impacts it would have on everyone else as well.

I also looked at the others, just in case, and searched them for the phrase 'police' and 'enforce', and found no references to this either (only things like 'enforcement of contracts').

As far as I'm considered, until I have a reason to believe that those who cannot afford protection would be protected in some way, and would not be made victims of theft and homicide, there is no further discussion. Its a no go. The wrongness of allowing this to happen makes the 'wrongness' of 'lawful theft' look like childs play.

I understand that you have other things to do, so I'm not looking for a response soon. Perhaps this weekend. But can you provide any sources that discuss this scenario and how it could work out? Or do most anarchist, like the writer of the above linked 'chaos' article, just prefer to pretend that the poor don't exist? When you have some time, I would appreciate any evidence (article or otherwise) that discusses this scenario.


I have to agree with ugarte. The idea that this would not lead to a breakdown of society at multiple levels is so divorced from any reality that includes imperfect human beings, a happy result could seemingly only exist in a utopian society. When you find one, let me know.


Lastly, its an interesting twist to blame Enron, WorldCom, et al on LLC protection. In many ways, I see your point and its accurate. However, we would have no viable economy without LLC protection. Who would dare try to start a small business if its failure (and a substantial majority of small businesses fail) meant that you were substantially personally indebted. And small businesses create a majority of our jobs and innovation.

What corporation would dare take on ambitious new projects if the personal welfare of all involved depended on it? For that matter, who would want to work for a corporation if any mistake (and everyone makes mistakes) could cost them their personal wealth?


And in your world, who would get the judgments in this world of a private justice system? The person who is right, or the person who could hand the judge the money that they needed to feed their family? Judges would be bought and paid for, no less than politicians are now, probably more.

Besides... here's a little devil's advocate for you... wouldn't anyone have the right to declare that they don't recognize the jurisdiction of any particular private court? And that the repo man, by taking something against their will, were engaging in unlawful theft? Why not?

krose

There are many evils in the world. I'll take the evil of your narrowly-defined robbery over the evils of the wealthy being completely unchecked and subjugating the poor relentlessly.

You say this, and yet history has repeatedly shown that monopolies not backed up by force (the only real examples being governments and mercantilist arrangements between corporations and governments) always become top-heavy and eventually fall to smaller, more flexible competitors. In other words, they don't stay monopolies for long.

I'm not so sure history really has shown that. Some monopolies have done quite well until forcibly broken up by governments. And even if I were to grant you that point, ok, so companies come and companies go -- within the top 5% of people in the world, there's fluctuation. I doubt Jon Q. Poorman really cares if it's Smith & Co. or Johnson & Co. which leaves him in the gutter.

If you really think a shiny new fire truck will make all the difference, well, I don't know what to say except that I'm not willing to take the (very substantial, imo) risk that you're completely wrong.

You set up that straw man, not me. Firefighting technology has improved substantially: firefighters are able to call on new chemicals; they can personally withstand harsher conditions due to improvements in equipment; hydraulic ladders enable them to effectively fight fires more quickly on higher floors; improved communication and faster trucks make deployment more efficient; etc. The days of private fire protection are more than 100 years old, so comparing their efficacy to today's modern fire departments is simply absurd.

Let's play a similar hypothetical guessing game in reverse to illustrate the illogic of your position. If auto manufacturers had been government-owned since 1930, would you similarly argue that private auto manufacturing had been tried and failed? I mean, we have much better safety equipment and higher quality standards now, so clearly the very concept of private car makers must have been the problem, right? Of course that wouldn't be the case, because you know that these things were done in the private sector using the power of the market. I fail to see why the same would not be true of fire protection and other services we currently rely on a government monopoly for.

The reasons many of those private fire departments were bad wasn't that they couldn't get there in time. It's that people couldn't afford those services. A fire breaks out, the private FD gets there and says "Gee, your house is burning down. That'll cost ya. Can't pay? Ciao."

Your car example proves my point exactly. Not everyone can afford a car. Among those who can, not everyone can afford a good car. I would not consider a car a vital commodity, so I'm ok with some people having to take the bus. But fire protection, police protection, etc -- these are vital commodities. If you look at someone not being able to afford police protection in the same way that I look at someone not being able to afford a car, I think Prof. Farnsworth needs to fix your empathy chip.

Regarding all your research about anarchy, btw, I frankly don't buy it. I've read articles like those before, but here's the real problem -- they're purely theoretical. It's never -- thank goodness -- been tested in a developed country, so you can point to all the articles you want, but at the end of the day they're just people spouting off thoughts with no experimental or empirical foundation. A gated community does not necessarily scale to a country without a police force protected by a network of gated communities. The closest examples we have to large-scale systems without governments are places like Somalia, where warlords reign supreme, and frankly I'm pretty thankful not to be living there.

DeltaOne81
I did open up the 'why abolishing government would not bring chaos' article - it seemed to be the most appropriately titled. It had a section on law enforcement, which did not even once discuss the consequences of having portions of society that could not afford to pay for such things.

It refuted ideas about corrupt organizations, or practical considerations, or average cost, etc - all of which I am basically willing to buy. But it took no look or consideration of what would happen to those who could afford no protection, and the impacts it would have on everyone else as well.

I also looked at the others, just in case, and searched them for the phrase 'police' and 'enforce', and found no references to this either (only things like 'enforcement of contracts').

As far as I'm considered, until I have a reason to believe that those who cannot afford protection would be protected in some way, and would not be made victims of theft and homicide, there is no further discussion. Its a no go. The wrongness of allowing this to happen makes the 'wrongness' of 'lawful theft' look like childs play.

This is what I was going for, only better put.

I'll deal with the rest of your (lengthy) response when I get the chance. But I'll address this now because it's low-hanging fruit:

DeltaOne81
Lastly, its an interesting twist to blame Enron, WorldCom, et al on LLC protection. In many ways, I see your point and its accurate. However, we would have no viable economy without LLC protection. Who would dare try to start a small business if its failure (and a substantial majority of small businesses fail) meant that you were substantially personally indebted. And small businesses create a majority of our jobs and innovation.

I don't know whether your judgment about economic growth here is correct or not: I suspect not, and rather believe that the owners of businesses would simply be a lot more circumspect about their activities. But you have admitted that the problem originates with government, not business, and that's all I wanted to see. If not for the government protection provided to LLC's, these kinds of abuses simply would not happen because the responsible people would find themselves personally liable.

You can't have it both ways: either the people responsible for the actions of an LLC (e.g., Enron, Worldcom) are liable or they are not. If they are liable, these abuses do not occur; if they are not, these abuses are likely to occur because there's profit to be made and little potential for personal loss. Which situation do you want? Decide, and then figure out which system gives you the desired properties.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
I'll deal with the rest of your (lengthy) response when I get the chance. But I'll address this now because it's low-hanging fruit:
But you have admitted that the problem originates with government, not business, and that's all I wanted to see. If not for the government protection provided to LLC's, these kinds of abuses simply would not happen because the responsible people would find themselves personally liable.

False dichotomy anyone?

Its the fault of both. The government blame lies as far as creating a system which allows 'limited liability' - which I still maintain (and have read in several economic sources, so its nost just a personal hunch) is a vital requirement to having an economy where people are not afraid to try new ideas and create wealth.

How could you ever have an 'American dream' is the only people who could ever start a company were those who could afford the substantial liability insurance costs (beyond what we already have). Allowing the business to be a separate entity from you is absolutely critical. How could you ever have small business and innovation if everyone was putting their personal well-being on the line everytime?


That said, the government created this structure - which may be imperfect - but its the business who chose to break the law or act immorality. Lets take the example of Enron, whose primary crime was deceivingly recording their revenue before it was collected. How would you charge them with such when there were no laws against it? If there's no standards or laws that they are forced to obey, what could they possibly have done wrong?

Oh, sure, they did economic damage to you, but wasn't it you who freely chose to work for them? Why are they responsible for your own bad decision?

Secondly, what they did to their workers was basically force them to hold large qualities of Enron stock, and only have select opportunities to sell. In an anarchistic world, would that just be part of the contract being employer and employee? If you agreed to be hired by them, then you agreed to the rules of their plan, no? Since you just make a free choice to work for them, who's to enforce and say what they did was wrong?

Besides, if you did sue them - for what I don't know - whats to prevent them from only agreeing to accept the ruling of the private justice firm who was founding and is run by former Enron lawyers, who still have weekly golf games with the CEO? Who's to tell them no? Who's to insure impartiality?

(You said its expensive to fight. It would cost them next to nothing to write you a letter on occasion that just said 'no').

Oh, sure, you can disagree, take it to an arbitrator, but who's to say they won't only agree to accept the results of an arbitration firm who was founded and run by former Enron lawyers, who....

Oh, and what if you can't afford to pay the private justice firm to judge the case or a lawyer to prosecute it, or the jury to judge it, or the arbitrator to arbitrate it? And considering you just lost all your retirement savings at Enron, that's quite likely. No justice for you then?

You could make an argument that the lawyer would likely work contingent on a percentage of any win, but the others won't. So what do you do then? Enron sure as heck isn't going to pay the fees to be judged at a firm they don't agree to - and they're bankrupt anyway.


So police protection and now the justice system are only for those who can afford to pay? I'm not saying thats what you want. I'm saying that the consequence of your proposal.

krose
I don't know whether your judgment about economic growth here is correct or not: I suspect not, and rather believe that the owners of businesses would simply be a lot more circumspect about their activities. But you have admitted that the problem originates with government, not business, and that's all I wanted to see. If not for the government protection provided to LLC's, these kinds of abuses simply would not happen because the responsible people would find themselves personally liable.

No, some individuals would continue to do morally suspect things on the hope that they could get away with it. (I'm not sure how enforcement works in a prospective anarchy and what "getting caught" means, but whatever.)

The problem I see is that this would greatly restrict the cost of capital. Without LLC protections, I am finanically liable for the actions a company that I invest in. Now a company can injure folks through gross negligence and therefore be subject to massive damages. No amount of liability consciousness short of stopping all economic activity will prevent this possibility. When this happens, the investor (stockholders) could easily end up having liabilities greater than their original investment through no direct action of their own. This risk would be a massive disincentive to investment, particularly in growth industries. Reduced flow of capital means reduced economic growth.

I'll take a few Enron's from time to time if it means overall growth for the economy. That's a good risk/reward tradeoff in my book.

Hey Keith,

You and I made essentially the same argument.

Lets just stay away from post-season tournaments

KeithK
When this happens, the investor (stockholders) could easily end up having liabilities greater than their original investment through no direct action of their own. This risk would be a massive disincentive to investment, particularly in growth industries. Reduced flow of capital means reduced economic growth.

LLC's do offer useful protection for shareholders who aren't involved in the day-to-day business of the company, but I'll point out that this indemnity could be explicitly written into the shareholder contract, backed up by insurers and reinsurers that are presented to potential shareholders explicitly to get access to the capital you claim would not be available in such a system.

Such a system still has better incentives than we have today, because it requires companies involved in potentially risky operations to explicitly obtain significant insurance and pay for it so that any losses resulting from disputes resolved out of their favor are covered by someone; and because this protection costs something and will necessarily involve oversight by the insurers, companies that want access to large amounts of capital are less likely to engage in behavior that is likely to result in damage disputes.

The real problem with LLC's is that they offer protection for officers in their roles as officers! That's just screwy: they are the ones involved directly in day-to-day operations, and should be held personally responsible for the consequences of their decisions. Now clearly, the justice system got a bunch of the guys involved in Enron, Worldcom, etc. (except for that rat bastard Ken Lay, who managed to die before serving a day in prison), but corporate officers that get thrown in PMITA prison are orders of magnitude fewer than those who get away with whatever abuse for which they are basically immune under government LLC protection.

Cheers,
Kyle

Seems like insurance is an incredibly massive industry in this world.


So again, I'll ask, what happens to the small business owners who can't afford the insurance to get investors or to protect themselves? You've thrown a big wrench in the framework of capitalism.

But more importantly, in terms of enforcement, who's to say that the executives and offers can't purchase insurance likewise? (or the companies purchase it on their behalf). Certainly you couldn't have a law that said they can't. They can and I would imagine that most would, no?

So if they're now insured for this, where is their incentive to not do it? Completely gone. Their protection has changed from their LLC structure to their insurance, but you've progressed nowhere on the front of self-enforcing business ethics.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions - I think that can apply equally to liberal, conservatives, libertarians, and yes, anarchists, at different times and different ways.

I've yet to see a path here that actually improves much of anything (although I'm willing to continue to listen), merely changing the way that people get away with things or act immorally.

And still tripping over the concept of what becomes of the people who can't afford this 74 important types of insurance, and how that effects the rest of society.


I think many people give the free market too much credit, too much faith. The free market is incredible... at one thing. When people talk about it being 'optimal' all they really mean is 'pareto optimal' - meaning that there is no way to make someone better off without making someone worse off - i.e. nothing is 'wasted' that serves no value.

Now, don't get me wrong, thats great, its very important. And it should be highly respected, but it doesn't say a darn thing about optimal (or even acceptable) social outcome. It doesn't say anything about morality or criminal behavior. It doesn't guarantee stability or honesty or any kind of justice. It doesn't even guarantee a good economy.

You could have a world filled with crime, death, and destruction... immoral scheming and trickery... backhanded business dealings and reneging on contracts... weak economy, high unemployment, and difficulty raising capital. And the free market is perfectly fine it - it does not have a solution for it, nor does is it even aware of it - its completely not in its view.

The efficiencies of a free market are great and important, but lets not pretend their anything more than what they are.

DeltaOne81
Seems like insurance is an incredibly massive industry in this world.

Insurance companies would replace police, fire protection, almost all agencies like the FDA, and the military. Of course, they probably contract out most of this rather than do it in-house.

So again, I'll ask, what happens to the small business owners who can't afford the insurance to get investors or to protect themselves? You've thrown a big wrench in the framework of capitalism.

It is possible that small businesses would be covered under a rider of the owners' insurance, in the same way that your personal possessions are still protected from theft in your car under your homeowner's insurance. But the answer you're probably looking for is that those who can't afford expensive insurance will simply buy cheaper insurance with fewer protections and higher deductibles, just like they do today.

But more importantly, in terms of enforcement, who's to say that the executives and offers can't purchase insurance likewise? (or the companies purchase it on their behalf). Certainly you couldn't have a law that said they can't. They can and I would imagine that most would, no?

So if they're now insured for this, where is their incentive to not do it? Completely gone. Their protection has changed from their LLC structure to their insurance, but you've progressed nowhere on the front of self-enforcing business ethics.

What insurance company would explicitly insure a high liability? Before signing the contract, they would have to have assurances in place that the person they were insuring was not going to engage in some activity that would place their assets at risk. Assurances = oversight. This means that the executives and officers would---in the absence of any legislation like SOX attempting to enforce transparency---have to be transparent to the people who have a direct stake in their behavior: those providing indemnity for that behavior.

Cheers,
Kyle

You still haven't addressed what happens to people who can't afford things like police protection, fire department protection, etc. Your car analogy I addressed by pointing out that some people can't afford cars. Are you willing in your system to have the poorest sector of society literally without any policing, fire departments, schools, assurance that their food meets minimal health requirements, etc etc etc?

Kyle,

I would be very willing to bet that you did not have to work to pay your own rent, tuition, bills, etc. when you were in college. Either you have absolutely no idea what it is like for someone to live paycheck-to-paycheck or you have somehow wiped this experience out of your mind.

How do you think those with limited means would ever be able to afford any of the securities and abilities you propose at a level of quality that would allow them to compete,let alone simply live safely? For example, say I am mugged and I kill someone in self-defense, but I have no money for a quality defense in your free-market, unregulated society. If the family of the mugger I have killed is far wealthier than I, what chance would I have of a successful defense? Of course, there is no legislative body to enact laws, and no neutral body to enforce laws, so the family of the person killed would probably just pay someone to kill me in revenge. If I had no money I would be in deep shit. A case like this between two wealthy families, however, could easily turn into a mini-war until one family is wiped-out or surrenders.

Also, if all of the roads are privatized, are we going to have to pay a toll every time we turn from one road onto another? You may think that we have poor roads now, but they are certainly passable and usable. We maintain some level of consistency in our roads by voting out legislators who do not put enough into our road budgets to meet the level of satisfaction of the majority of their constituents (read average citizen, not the most discerning individual). If hundreds or thousands of companies are in charge of road maintenance, how do you propose any consistency among them all?

Lastly, say a private owner does not allow me to use his road because I am black, white, a woman, whatever? Your answer would be to sue him. If he has far more money than I, and there is no neutral, regulative body to oversee the lawsuit, how could I have any chance of winning my right to use that road? Again, there are no laws in your society, so there would be no case anyway, and any private owner could prevent access or use of anything for whatever reason they want.

I have no idea where you originally came up with your idealistic beliefs, but they have absolutely no basis in reality. Your vision would eventually create a society in which only the most elite, wealthiest individuals would have any possibility of security and success. The only way I could see this vision making sense is if you believe that we humans should live entirely in a true survival-of-the-fittest world similar to the rest of the animal kingdom. If that is the case, I can understand your argument, but I can not agree with you.

cth95
a true survival-of-the-fittest world similar to the rest of the animal kingdom.

Actually, various studies have shown that some (could be all, I don't know) species of primates have complex social structures in which survival of the fittest is overcome by empathy and deference to a social hierarchy. In other words, humans were solving problems with methods that included taxation-type-things before there were humans.

krose
What insurance company would explicitly insure a high liability? Before signing the contract, they would have to have assurances in place that the person they were insuring was not going to engage in some activity that would place their assets at risk. Assurances = oversight. This means that the executives and officers would---in the absence of any legislation like SOX attempting to enforce transparency---have to be transparent to the people who have a direct stake in their behavior: those providing indemnity for that behavior.

What assurance? Using what crystal ball? What kind of scammer would tell you beforehand that he plans to scam you? Or in a different scenario, easily someone could start out with noble intention but become corrupt in the process, I'd venture that's generally how it happens now, don't ya think?

Obviously you'd only be able to get away with this once, but that's all most people would need, right?


Oh, and we haven't even touched education yet, which only the well-to-do could afford, making it basically impossible to ever improve your station in life. Plus all the things mentioned by ftyuv and cth95.


I still think it appears you're relying on a mechanism for solutions to social and societal problems who's job isn't to provide anything of the sort.

krose
As with Fred, you are building a scenario that simply wouldn't occur because there are disincentives to that activity.

disincentives how? by whom? who determines which men are eligible to become re-po men? whoever is biggest? whoever is strongest?

presuming all governments, the U.S., the U.K., every other Eastern and Western governments are eliminated, what is the organization that provides social order?

who decides where the roads go or where the police stations are? which companies, and how do they rise to be in a position to determine the basic needs of humans (food, water, shelter, transportation, etc)? what if someone decides not to pay this company for the use of the road, who, then, prevents them from using the road? do you not need a security force to prevent these non-paying individuals from using the roads? if so, how is this different from a government?

I guess my point is, what is the alternative? why is it that every society has made strides to establish a government of some variety (dictatorship, democracy, republic, socialist, whatever...)? if your system, devoid of any "government" is so logical, why is it that no human society has succesfullly implemented such an oranizational structure? what makes you smarter than ben franklin, john hancock, thomas jefferson, and every other member of the congressional congress? why didn't they think of the "let's let companies make up everything under a free market" premise?

a bit pompous, no?

cth95
Also, if all of the roads are privatized, are we going to have to pay a toll every time we turn from one road onto another? You may think that we have poor roads now, but they are certainly passable and usable. We maintain some level of consistency in our roads by voting out legislators who do not put enough into our road budgets to meet the level of satisfaction of the majority of their constituents (read average citizen, not the most discerning individual). If hundreds or thousands of companies are in charge of road maintenance, how do you propose any consistency among them all?

Of all of Kyle's general suggestions privatized roads are the most reasonable and workable, at least when we're talking about larger roads (highway scale but possibly also major local roads). There are private roads now and there is a long history of them (see tunrpikes). Yes, you'd have to pay a toll to use the road and possibly frequently. But at this point tolls could be collected electronically without significant disruption to traffic. I see nothing wrong with drivers paying for the amount they actually use the roads - from one point of view it's more fair and equitable than charging everyone a similar amount.

Local roads and side streets would be harder to manage privately because the traffic flow is not as straightforward. It might be possible but it would be harder to manage. Hypothetically, transitioning from the existing system to a privately managed one would likewise be easier for major roads.

Lastly, say a private owner does not allow me to use his road because I am black, white, a woman, whatever? Your answer would be to sue him. If he has far more money than I, and there is no neutral, regulative body to oversee the lawsuit, how could I have any chance of winning my right to use that road? Again, there are no laws in your society, so there would be no case anyway, and any private owner could prevent access or use of anything for whatever reason they want.

I'm guessing that Kyle response to the discrimation example wouldn't be sue the owner of the road (on what basis would you sue?) but to say that the market would provide an alternate road to short circuit the discrimatory road. After all, if someone prevents a substantial portion of the population from using the road then he is leaving money on the table for someone else to come and take, so to speak. In the real world I think this would only work to some degree; it would fail in some cases (Deep South in the Jim Crow era), would be somewhat wasteful of resources (duplicate roads) and take time to equilibrate (time to build duplicate roads to respond to the initial discrimation).

mttgrmm
I guess my point is, what is the alternative? why is it that every society has made strides to establish a government of some variety (dictatorship, democracy, republic, socialist, whatever...)? if your system, devoid of any "government" is so logical, why is it that no human society has succesfullly implemented such an oranizational structure? what makes you smarter than ben franklin, john hancock, thomas jefferson, and every other member of the congressional congress? why didn't they think of the "let's let companies make up everything under a free market" premise?

a bit pompous, no?

The fact that no society has ever chosen a particular system in no way implies that it's not workable or logical. Since when have people acted logically in most or even a majority of situations? Historically, most systems of government have been relatively autocratic in nature. This isn't "logical" in the sense of promoting the greatest good, only in the sense of promoting the interests of those in power. The Founding Fathers created our system of government in reaction to systems existant in England and Europe. Even as a constitutional originalist I don't believe that they somehow created the perfect system of government. As humanity develops we may well come up with better models.

Promoting a system that is radically different from the existing one isn't being pompous. It's just being radical.

KeithK
Of all of Kyle's general suggestions privatized roads are the most reasonable and workable, at least when we're talking about larger roads (highway scale but possibly also major local roads). There are private roads now and there is a long history of them (see turnpikes). Yes, you'd have to pay a toll to use the road and possibly frequently. But at this point tolls could be collected electronically without significant disruption to traffic. I see nothing wrong with drivers paying for the amount they actually use the roads - from one point of view it's more fair and equitable than charging everyone a similar amount.

Local roads and side streets would be harder to manage privately because the traffic flow is not as straightforward. It might be possible but it would be harder to manage. Hypothetically, transitioning from the existing system to a privately managed one would likewise be easier for major roads.

This is all an interesting thought, and I'm willing to say that I've rethought the issue on roads. I hadn't consider the whole business based-toll angle. Just hadn't occurred to me. And Kyle did kind of use tolls as a bad example in discussing the topics so I figured we were talking other options. But its true, at least for larger roads, it seems feasible.

But let me discuss something that gets to to the later points about roads & discrimination - and this plays directly into a previous topic as well, namely monopolies.

Contrary to the assertion, in certain industries that work certain ways, monopolies are not against capitalism, but very much a natural part of it (this does not mean they are desired, but they are still natural). Generally these are industries that require substantial infrastructure - this about where individual customers face monopolies today - telephone (except for regulations breaking it), cable, water, gas, and electricity (ditto).

All of these are situations where you require substantial physical infrastructure layout before even beginning to enter a market - telephone wires, electric lines and polls, cable layout, etc. Any competitor entering the market would need to duplicate all of that effort, and for that their reward would likely be a small to modest portion of the subscriber base - generally, the return on investment just isn't worthwhile.

Except for regulation forcing line sharing, telephone would be the same - as your local friendly telephone monopoly would have no incentive to lease their lines to competitors.

So as opposed to Kyle's previous assertion, monopolies are not naturally short lasting and broken up by smaller competitors - not in all industries. In some cases a monopoly *is* the natural, capitalistic solution.


It appears fairly likely that large roads would be a similar natural monopoly in many cases. The capital layout to build a new one is substantial, and to do it in order to serve a small portion of the population is probably not a good investment. This may vary depending on the location, as sometimes the public would prefer to support this non-discriminatory road. But as KeithK points out, in certain cultures such as the Jim Crow south, this would not be the case. There is no market based solution to discrimination with any sort of reliability.

Keep in mind also, that in this anarchistic world, if the road did fail, it would not just be considered a failed business who could declare bankruptcy and move on. The owners and possibly investors would personally be on the hook to pay back the millions or billions of dollars owed to all creditors. Who would be willing to undertake that risk, on top of all the normal risk associated with that project.

If you *were* to purchase insurance against such failure, the insurance would obviously be monstrously expensive. If you have only a 50% chance at success, then the natural cost for the insurance would be around 50% of the cost of the project. And you thought the ROI was poor odds before?


But lets remember that in this world, local roads would need to be privately owned too, which would be significantly move troublesome. I feel if there were joint ownership by voluntary contributions, it would fail (see game theory). So that would appear to leave us with toll-based to. Lets ignore the practical issues with installing toll collection on local roads (which go without saying), and move on to the impact of such a situation.

Namely the social impacts. I agree 'paying-per-use' may be fair in many respects. It would also likely reduce driving as it raises the cost per mile, which would be helpful to the environment, etc. But realize that it is also exceedingly regressive.

All of the working poor, who are already being asked to pay for police protection, fire insurance, non-responsibility insurance at work, perhaps retirement insurance, all health insurance (no medicare or medicaid), would also be asked to pay for their use of their roads to get to work. How much could they reasonably afford? (Btw, sidewalks being privately owned would probably mean there would be a toll to walk to work too, right?)

In those economically downtrodden places, where people were not able to pay much to use the roads, the roads would likely not be profitable, especially during economic downturns. What then? The roads fall into disrepair as the income they generate does not justify their continued investment. As this continues, how is the area supposed to improve their quality of the economy if their trip to work is dangerous, if they're passable at all.

And this wouldn't just be a disincentive to those with small incomes, but small businesses as well. Local delivery businesses - be it food, flowers, or other local deliveries - would face a much harder time making a profit (note that business income tax can never turn a profit into a loss). So bigger businesses would pay less, and the smaller businesses trying to get off the ground (on top of their need to pay for non-liability insurance for all owners, employees, and any investors, as well as for police and fire protection), would now face yet another barrier to turning a profit... hurting the very innovation that is supposed to prevent a monopoly, and our greatest source of jobs.

But its a free market, so at least it'd be efficient!

RichH
Oh, and I was one of those who, after a layoff and my COBRA benefits went away, accepted the responsibility to live without health insurance. It was either food or insurance for me. The job I found to pay the bills didn't offer benefits. Somehow, I survived that period, but accepted the risk. The big stinker was that there exists inexpensive catastrophic insurance, but it was illegal in NYS, which doesn't make sense to me. The "Healthy NY" program hadn't started yet.

This was exactly the point I made to Kyle, who responded with some interesting comment about life decisions. In many cases, life decisions aren't made as a result of people sitting around determining the best long-term course of action for themselves. They are born of necessity. Rich's example is perfect - pay for food, or pay for insurance. He accepted the risk of living without insurance, as many do, but if he had is druthers I'm guessing Rich would have had insurance AND food. Am I right?

As for the rest of this debate:

There are models of social interaction, based on an varying assumptions of rational self-interested actors with no government oversight, which show that relatively harmonious social existence complete with high levels of altruism is possible. In fact, in some models, it is an equilibrium attractor state, meaning that the model is likely to end in that result, and once it gets there it stays there. I'm not going to bother to dig up the citations.

The thing the anarchists have to understand is that there have been NO models in which the anarchist utopian vision is a UNIQUE attractor state. There's always an alternative, and it's always bad for some portion of the population (they die out, or get exploited).

I have one suggestion for interested parties, which relates to the security and law enforcement question. You might want to read about vendettas between Corsican families back in the 1600s or so (I believe that's the right time period) for harmful spirals of privately-financed justice. Roger Gould did an interesting analysis of the historical records there, and came up with some nice insights into human behavior. I don't really recommend reading the whole article, but the introduction and conclusion and a quick scan of the middle portions might be interesting. This doesn't have much bearing on the anarchy vs. government debate, but it's an interesting aside given the discussion of security and whatnot. Might be more fun to just read a brief history of the Corsican vendettas.

krose

DeltaOne81
Seems like insurance is an incredibly massive industry in this world.

Insurance companies would replace police, fire protection, almost all agencies like the FDA, and the military. Of course, they probably contract out most of this rather than do it in-house.

Kyle, you promote anarchy, but with all your talk of insurance companies it seems like this requires an enormous bureaucracy hanging over the world that people can turn to in order to right the various wrongs that they might encounter. How is this different from government, exactly? It seems like you're proposing a privatized government system, which you call insurance. Is that really anarchist? I'm asking because I honestly don't know, and can't see the distinction from what you've written here. And no, I'm not going to go and read a bunch of other texts. I want you to explain it to me, because I'm lazy. :p

Tom Lento
Kyle, you promote anarchy, but with all your talk of insurance companies it seems like this requires an enormous bureaucracy hanging over the world that people can turn to in order to right the various wrongs that they might encounter. How is this different from government, exactly?

One could argue that this is different from government because it is not mandatory (you pay your premiums voluntarily, not because you are required to) and is market driven and therefore probably more efficient and responsive to people's needs than government would be. On the first point, it's either de facto mandatory (e.g. you get robbed unless you pay for police protection) or has a massive free rider problem (e.g. I let John Smith pay for the police and hope that the crooks wil think I'm covered too). On the second point, I suspect the insurance industry would end up being dominated by large companies (due to economies of scale) that would only be marginally more efficient in their practices than government would be.

Tom Lento
Kyle, you promote anarchy, but with all your talk of insurance companies it seems like this requires an enormous bureaucracy hanging over the world that people can turn to in order to right the various wrongs that they might encounter. How is this different from government, exactly?

You certainly can consider it a form of privatized government. The difference being that, because it is private, you can fire it and get a different one. It may be fundamentally indistinguishable in operation from exclusive local government. I haven't thought through all the consequences of that, so there may still be some important distinctions.

A few other points from skimming your replies:

but if he had is druthers I'm guessing Rich would have had insurance AND food. Am I right?

I'm sure. But if I had my druthers, I'd have houses in Ithaca, San Diego, Boston, New York, and Maui, along with a Hummer H1 and a Maserati. But I have to make choices because of my limited resources. Certainly having to choose between food and health care is a wee bit more distressing, but the fundamental problem---having multiple desires and needing to choose between them---is the same.

The problem is that all solutions in which everyone is 100% guaranteed to receive their most critical desires (shelter, food, water, clothing, or health care or some combination of those) is that uniformly they all can be implemented only by violating the rights of others. I always put an individual's rights above others' desires, even critical ones.

in certain industries that work certain ways, monopolies are not against capitalism, but very much a natural part of it (this does not mean they are desired, but they are still natural). Generally these are industries that require substantial infrastructure - this about where individual customers face monopolies today - telephone (except for regulations breaking it), cable, water, gas, and electricity (ditto).

Problem today is that this kind of infrastructure generally is owned by a corporation that was permitted to become a monopoly de jure, not de facto. While it is certainly desirable aesthetically not to have fifteen separate sets of electricity lines running along your telephone pole, why should the potential market desire for such a situation be restricted by government? Besides, it isn't necessary to have multiple sets of lines to make the market more fluid. What if communities were permitted to own their own physical infrastructure? What about other solutions that I haven't even thought of?

Furthermore, government regulation, whether mercantilist in intent or only in effect, raises the barriers to entry into the water/electricity/gas/etc. service provider market, making it much harder for (say) a neighboorhood-run non-profit electricity cooperative to build a power plant or run multiple lines to multiple plants in order to give them downward price leverage. A great counterexample illustrating why your logic is suspect is bandwidth: bandwidth has the same exact physical infrastructure issues as electricity, and yet bandwidth is fucking dirt cheap compared to electricity (i.e., profit margins are comparatively razor-thin) because there aren't artificial monopolies in bandwidth blessed by government... cheaper, that is, except in the residential market where most people, due to government-blessed monopolies, have at most one cable provider and at most one DSL provider and many have only one or even zero of these choices.

Cheers,
Kyle

KeithK
On the second point, I suspect the insurance industry would end up being dominated by large companies (due to economies of scale) that would only be marginally more efficient in their practices than government would be.

Can you point me at the checkbox on my W-2 that allows me to pre-pay only for physical protection and nothing else, and pay per-use for everything else? Even at the government's current inefficiency level (read: Iraq war), I'd reduce my tax burden by about 65% and probably not spend anywhere near the difference in per-use fees.

What I'm getting at is that these insurance companies, irrespective of efficiency in delivering protection, simply would not be involved in paying for all the other crap government does. It's certainly possible they would find it in their interest to provide some level of welfare (!!), but it would be precisely the level necessary to minimize their overall costs, e.g., by reducing defense against mobs. No such accounting goes on in government, because government doesn't need to make a profit: it can just keep taxing at whatever rate it feels like.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
What I'm getting at is that these insurance companies, irrespective of efficiency in delivering protection, simply would not be involved in paying for all the other crap government does. It's certainly possible they would find it in their interest to provide some level of welfare (!!), but it would be precisely the level necessary to minimize their overall costs, e.g., by reducing defense against mobs. No such accounting goes on in government, because government doesn't need to make a profit: it can just keep taxing at whatever rate it feels like.

A true limited governmennt that only provided extremely basic services like police protection would also provide the same reduction in pre-pay cost. So cost itself isn't necessarily a distinguishing factor. But insurance companies wouldn't have the ability that governments do to unilaterally increase that cost, or at least would have less ability. Fair enough.

krose
I always put an individual's [property ownership] rights above others' desires, even critical ones.

Well then, there we have it. As far as I'm concerned, this is the fundimental difference in thought between you and most other people. If that's your starting point, then really I don't know if there's much room for discussion. Thank God (and evolution) that you're by far in the minority on this issue.

Forgive my emendation to your original post, but after I hit send it occurred to me that since I believe individuals have many rights, some of which come to odds against absolute property ownership rights, it was necessary.

ftyuv
Well then, there we have it. As far as I'm concerned, this is the fundimental difference in thought between you and most other people. If that's your starting point, then really I don't know if there's much room for discussion. Thank God (and evolution) that you're by far in the minority on this issue.

Yeah, thank God (and evolution) that those who think voluntary giving (charity) is more ethical than coerced giving (robbery) are by far the minority. There's no disputing that you've got the moral high ground here.

Kyle

I never said I have any moral high ground, I said I'm very thankful that people like you are in the minority. But as it happens, I do think I have the moral high ground. The reasons have been mentioned above.

ftyuv
I never said I have any moral high ground, I said I'm very thankful that people like you are in the minority. But as it happens, I do think I have the moral high ground. The reasons have been mentioned above.

And I think you're wrong. Why? Because if you peacefully refuse to comply with its rules, the state will eventually initiate violence against you. When is aggression ever an appropriate response to non-aggression? This article (the sequel to "the gun in the room" makes this very plain:

[www.lewrockwell.com]

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
When is [arrest] ever an appropriate response to [breaking the law]?

Uh huh.

But wait a second, in your scenario, if someone was convicted of some damage to another and it required seizing their house, and they refused, and repo men had to come and kick them out, wouldn't that exactly match your scenario of a violent response to non-violence? How is that any different? A person owes something based on the rules of a court, they peacefully refused, and then physical force is used to force them? Its the government, or its privately contracted repo men, but both violate your ideal.

One thing I'm unclear of, is there criminal punishment in your anarchist society? You've talked about repo men, etc, but thats only good for issues of money. And before you ask 'what law did they break?', natural law of course, the right to life, and liberty. Is there punishment for theft, or is it just economic (i.e. return the good). And what is they're already been sold to buy food and eaten. What disincentive is that the crime if you're going to starve to death anyway? Certainly not the risk of being killed in the process, as you're going to starve to <I>death</I> anyway.


But I admire your ideal, I do. That everyone be given a right to look after their needs, chose their full path, and live in the natural rules and not by man's.

However, let me point out something very different about the natural world to our world. No bear, or tiger, or fish, or frog, or bug, is born with an inherent advantage over the others based on who their parents are. All have equal opportunity to hunt and eat, find shelter, avoid predators, and to work for their next meal. They are not refused training in life's tasks because of who their parents are, they are not given an inherent superior defense, more protection from wildfire, more ability to survive a drought or famine, or to fight a fire, just because of who they were born to.

In civilization, that is not the case. Those born to parents of better social status would get the superior education, superior medicine, superior protection, superior work opportunities, and everything else.

Do not pretend that you would take a current world now, and replace it with one built purely on personal talent and skill. The only thing you would replace it with is one based on the ovarian lottery. Where your parents station in life basically decides your future in an overwhelming majority of cases. Whether you live in squalor or comfort, whether you die by violence or in peace, whether fire renders you hopeless or waiting in a nice hotel for your house to be rebuilt, whether a storm washes away your hopes and dreams, or merely gets you a little wet. That's freedom? Its freedom for some, but it seems like a prison for everyone else.

We cannot live in the idealistic world of nature, because money and an economy does not allow us to. Money is keepable, buildable, growable, and passed on to children, in a way that mirrors nothing in the natural world. Trying to live in an civilized, modern economy with the rules of the natural world, makes no more sense than trying to play hockey with the rules of parcheesi.

While you declare freedom and justice and natural law, realize that the only ones who would experience them are the people who were born to the right people. The remaining portion would be fundamentally incapable of sharing in your society, because of who they were born to. If thats justice and the moral high ground for you, okay, but its not for me.

DeltaOne81
But wait a second, in your scenario, if someone was convicted of some damage to another and it required seizing their house, and they refused, and repo men had to come and kick them out, wouldn't that exactly match your scenario of a violent response to non-violence?

I'm not sure why the distinction between the two scenarios isn't clear:

The damage scenario: (1) By the point things get to the repo-man, the first party has already violated someone else's natural rights (in this case, to property), so the aggrieved party is not initiating aggression. (2) The proper level of aggression is limited to recovering the actual damages incurred.

The tax evasion scenario: No one has a natural right to my property, so just whom have I damaged? I have not violated anyone else's rights by refusing to deliver it to a third party (the government) for redistribution. So if the government comes to throw me in jail for refusing to pay my taxes, they are initiating aggression.

A person owes something based on the rules of a court, they peacefully refused, and then physical force is used to force them? Its the government, or its privately contracted repo men, but both violate your ideal.

No, it's not the same, because the government's taxes aren't based on a judgment of damages. I have not damaged anyone (least of all government) by virtue of earning money, so I will not pay them or any party except under threat of their initiating violence against me.

One thing I'm unclear of, is there criminal punishment in your anarchist society?

No. If someone steals, they are detained until they can remit either the value of the stolen goods or the goods themselves. This may involve the thief having to work off his debt, but of course no one can force him to work, in which case the group detaining the person has to decide what is the proper recourse because holding someone is expensive (food and shelter aren't free).

It's likely that thieves unwilling to work off their debts would simply be "exiled," i.e., taken to some place very far from the original act and left to their own devices, with the victim's insurance company taking the hit for covering the value of the stolen goods and incorporating the event into its cost/benefit analysis for the level of security provided to its customers. But to be honest, I haven't thought through all the implications of this, though I'm sure someone else has.

However, let me point out something very different about the natural world to our world. No bear, or tiger, or fish, or frog, or bug, is born with an inherent advantage over the others based on who their parents are...

Yadda yadda yadda... yes, Victoria, life is unfair. File this alongside supply and demand as one of those laws you can't repeal, and then figure out how to make do in a universe subject to those laws.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
The damage scenario: (1) By the point things get to the repo-man, the first party has already violated someone else's natural rights (in this case, to property), so the aggrieved party is not initiating aggression. (2) The proper level of aggression is limited to recovering the actual damages incurred.

What if the first party doesn't recognize the judges authority, believes the conclusion is unfair, or never consented to the trail in the first place?

No, it's not the same, because the government's taxes aren't based on a judgment of damages. I have not damaged anyone (least of all government) by virtue of earning money, so I will not pay them or any party except under threat of their initiating violence against me.

I'm not saying the reason to collect the money is the same. I'm saying the mere tactic violence in response to non-violence is - which is what you objected to in the last posting. So you're saying violence in response to non-violence is okay when its based on the rule of a private court (see above, what if its a private court the the guilty never consented to), but not when its based on the ruling or a public court or a government?

One thing I'm unclear of, is there criminal punishment in your anarchist society?

No. If someone steals, they are detained until they can remit either the value of the stolen goods or the goods themselves. This may involve the thief having to work off his debt, but of course no one can force him to work, in which case the group detaining the person has to decide what is the proper recourse because holding someone is expensive (food and shelter aren't free).

So what's the disincentive to commit crime if you're heading towards death anyway?

And who says (literally, who would say?) that the group detaining someone need to provide food and shelter? Why can't they just throw him in a cage in the backyard?

...But to be honest, I haven't thought through all the implications of this, though I'm sure someone else has.

To be honest, I'm not sure anyone else has. I'm not trying to be snarky, but I've read the writings you've linked to and I've yet to see any reference to what happens to the poor or unlucky. I'm beginning to doubt its a coincidence, probably because they just don't care. Which is fine, you and they are entitled not to care. But the rest of us are entitled to care and set public policy based on the majority opinion.

Yadda yadda yadda... yes, Victoria, life is unfair. File this alongside supply and demand as one of those laws you can't repeal, and then figure out how to make do in a universe subject to those laws.

Isn't your philosophy basically that taxation is unfair? Couldn't I just say, "yadda yadda yadda... life is unfair"?

Oh sure, you can frame it as a right. But I can say I believe that, as in a natural world, everyone has a right to a fair education to do their job, an equal shot a that job, justice that doesn't depend on your ability to afford it, and to minimize ovarian advantages based on equal opportunity to better themselves.

You claim a right to property. I claim a right to be born equal. We can't have both. Sorry Kyle, life is unfair.

It's just as likely that someone would be tortured for fun by some sadistic "group detaining the person." If the group is filled with pragmatists, maybe they'll just beat him a little every day, and possibly kidnap a kid or two for large accounts. Hey why not? He didn't pay you back, now he's yours. More to the point, who's to stop them? And you didn't answer Delta's good question about non-money offenses. Say I kill your relative -- do you get to kill one of mine? Or possibly two, because that's what you've decided is justice, and there's no organization in place to say otherwise? What's to stop this from breaking into clans killing each other for years or more?

Here's the thing: I disagree that you have not violated anyone's natural rights by not paying your taxes. As I said, people have many natural rights. One is the right to property. But another is to live in a society which seeks to protect them to some degree from the imperfections of the world. Along with that right comes the obligation, on everyone's behalf, to support that society's capability to do so, and that's where government and taxes come in. (Do the two rights [and others I haven't talked about here] clash at points? Of course. That's where people come in to weigh things and strike a balance.)

Now, when you say "natural" rights, I'm not sure if you mean "according to the way things are in non-man nature," or if you mean "the way I imagine rights should be." I don't mean that facetiously, since I think both are valid definitions, and it's a bit ambiguous.

If you mean natural as in according to nature, then let me once again point out that in the primate world, nature has already established the right I mentioned and the obligation to submit to the social organization which upholds it for the common good.

If you mean natural as in according to your view of how the world can be, that's somewhat axiomatic and can't really be argued one way or the other, except for me to again say that I think you'd be subjecting an awful lot of people to a very miserable life.

First, thanks to Kyle and Keith for illustrating the difference. I'm not convinced that the privatized government system is better - I suspect it would be more cost-effective, but knowing as much as I do about social dilemmas and how people routinely fail to solve them, I also suspect the world would become a stupid, irritating, and probably more dangerous place to live. Not nearly as stupid and irritating a place to live as it would be if I was in charge, but more dangerous and less funny. :D

krose
I'm sure. But if I had my druthers, I'd have houses in Ithaca, San Diego, Boston, New York, and Maui, along with a Hummer H1 and a Maserati. But I have to make choices because of my limited resources. Certainly having to choose between food and health care is a wee bit more distressing, but the fundamental problem---having multiple desires and needing to choose between them---is the same.

The problem is that all solutions in which everyone is 100% guaranteed to receive their most critical desires (shelter, food, water, clothing, or health care or some combination of those) is that uniformly they all can be implemented only by violating the rights of others. I always put an individual's rights above others' desires, even critical ones.

First of all, even comparing multiple residences and expensive cars to FOOD and HEALTH CARE suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of how social structure impacts economic decisionmaking.

Second, this has nothing to do with the anarchy argument. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was going back to the "irresponsible" argument from before. There is no decision there. The individual doesn't choose. I can either starve to death now, or risk potentially dying as a result of medical complications later because I can't afford quality care. Where, exactly, is my power to choose? I said nothing about falling back on the government. In fact, I made the distinction about quality health coverage because, frankly, Medicaid is not quality health coverage. Better than nothing, certainly, but it's awful. The problem exists, whether you fall back on government or not. The individual does not necessarily have the ability to choose, and so that individual should not be responsible for damages as a result of the actions of a third party. (remember that discussion? that's where this originated - which makes the rise of the whole anarchy topic that we're discussing now even more bizarre)

As for anarchy, people who put individual rights above everything are often completely blind to the effects of the social structure around them. I mentioned models which show that anarchy and altruism can coexist, and that reasonable solutions to social dilemmas are possible without a top-down governing system. However, models which create functioning anarchist societies ALL start with the assumption that everyone begins on equal footing. So in your anarchist revolution, I hope you'll first take all the resources in the world and redistribute them equally to everyone to allow them to make decisions from the same position. Otherwise, your system will spiral into a sub-optimal equilibrium where the existing division of resources (which incidentally drives the governing power at the individual level) will reproduce a society much like what we have today, but with those in power gaining more resources at the expense of everyone else.

Quite the conundrum. You might be able to have a world where the government isn't taking your property and giving it to others, but first you have to take property from the rich and give it to the poor. And then hope like hell that you've got the right mix of decisionmaking agents interacting with the correct set of alters to drive you to a positive equilibrium outcome.

I think I'd rather see a more limited form of government, personally, but then I'm fairly conservative when it comes to these things.