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

[DeltaOne81]

[quote 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.[/quote]


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!

[Tom Lento]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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.

[Tom Lento]

[quote krose][quote DeltaOne81]Seems like insurance is an incredibly massive industry in this world.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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

[KeithK]

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.

[Rosey]

[quote 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?[/quote]
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

[Rosey]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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

[KeithK]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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.

[ftyuv]

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

[Rosey]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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. ::rolleyes::

Kyle

[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.

[Rosey]

[quote 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.[/quote]
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:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux30.html

Cheers,
Kyle

[DeltaOne81]

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

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 death 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.

[Rosey]

[quote 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?[/quote]

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

[DeltaOne81]

[quote 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.[/quote]

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.

[ftyuv]

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.