Topic: Anarcho-capitalism, Monopolies, Private dictatorships - page 7. (Read 14871 times)

I guess we can agree to disagree about this.  Historical evidence favors me tremendously.  If there was benevolent dictator that could fairly handle this, sure, you have a great argument.  But the trouble is, Who will watch the Watchmen?  As long as those we put in charge are humans and subject to all these horrible things you find in humans, giving a certain group of them a monopoly on force just invites even more trouble.  If all men were angels, we wouldn't need government is your philosophy it seems.  But if a lot of men are devils, isn't that even more reason to NOT have a government and monopoly of violence?

Now there are not just two extremes (everyone does whatever they want vs. monopoly of violence).  Even today there is no monopoly of violence ( no world government).  There can be an "optimal" number of violent operators that is greater than 1 and less than 7 billion.  Specialization, division of labor and all that.


Except a few DO see a profit from it, and a very large one.  Namely those who are the most politically connected.  Having a monopoly of violence means that they can do whatever they want, charge it to whoever they want, and reap the benefits.

I agree.  Most people are generally decent, but will cheat if they can get away with it.  Sure, people like to be led, which is why government are successful.  They also like to boss other people around, so that's another benefit they provide to some people.

No way the Koch brothers would go after a non-state.  They love the state.  They just want it to put money in their pockets rather than the other way around.  It's my belief that they try to lure Libertarians away from useful endeavors and either put them in a rubber room doing useless things or trying to trick them into siding with Republicans.


That's where there is a big difference.  Marxism assumes people are angels and won't cheat.  Anarcho-Capitalism assumes people are self-interested and will do things in their own interest.  Without a central authority to cheaply interfere with others, those who wish to enact violence must pay the full cost (no one is profiting from the Iraq war if they had to pay for it themselves, for example), and it becomes unprofitable.  If you have suckers to pay the cost and get none of the benefit (taxpayers), you can get away with that kind of stuff, and profit very well (see Xe).

 

My point about the inevitable formation of states is not analogous to tearing down churches. Consider my earlier posts carefully as I have already explained the process. It's not a matter of some elaborate ideology imposed from on-high, it's a matter of practicality. Force, there are limited resources in the real world and violence can come about for all sorts of reasons, many of them irrational. Violence must be monopolized so that it can be minimized and removed from daily life. I define the monopolization of violence as the core function of the state, the role that defines a state as a state. You're deeply naive if you think violence can be a freely available resource for all and at the same time everyone will choose not to produce any in order to maximize their own utility.

The states central function is control of violence, you could say it levies a kind of surcharge on those that use violence, a charge heavy enough to ensure that few can see any profit by it, a monopoly enforced barrier to entry if you will. This control of violence is the core and definitive characteristic of state (and a role that will always be required in any human society of millions of individuals). The state is the mediator of last resort, therefore it accumulates a history of mediation and concession in the various quarrels and clashes of interest that occur within its borders that we may as well call laws and constitutions and so on. That's what a state is, a monopoly of violence and a mediator of last resort. To me it sounds silly for people to demand that violence should not be monopolized and there should be no such thing as a mediator of last resort.  Sure states can certainly go wrong, be corrupt and murderous, but all that (and who controls the state and to what end) is another issue entirely.

By the way I don't want to give the impression that I think people are all treacherous snakes or something, I'm just explaining specifically the role of the state. If I were to explain the role of a civic sewage system that would not be to say that I think the world is made of shit. If you want to talk about abolishing the state we should remind ourselves what these things essentially are. They are merely the fulfillment of a societal role.

Also you miss my point about the Koch Brothers and their like. I didn't say I think these billionaires are anarchists, it is precisely because they just want their version of the state that they'll happily throw money at the Tea Party all day. And if there was an Anarcho-Capitalist Party they'd probably shovel millions in that direction too, and with laughter in their eyes. That's precisely my point. Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist movements want to make a state where money alone rules and all former obligations painfully hewn from the stone of history by the common man and woman over generations can be abandoned so that the rich can expand and rule their private dictatorships unimpeded. This may not be what they think they're doing, the term 'useful idiot' comes to mind.

The popularity of Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism in America speaks to the political ignorance and class-unconsciousness that has so prevailed in that culture for decades. I blame corporate domination of the media and the two party system (The Party of Business Interests or the Business Interests Party).

Here in Europe where we were once literally ruled by kings and aristocrats (and still are forced to endure ridiculous amounts of media attention to their stupid royal weddings), even now centuries later very few people would be foolish enough to fall for the sort of nonsense ideas that seemed to have gained so much traction in the US. In the 'Land of the Free' they are basically calling for some sort of Absolute Market Theocracy, in classic Orwellian double-think language this is considered 'liberty', it's almost comical.

Anarchy by the way is a possible way of life, nomads for instance live that way, but Anarcho-Capitalism is a total oxymoron in a world where people do not live an ultra-mobile lifestyle as a matter of course..

Anarcho-Capitalism is a sort of (altered)Marxist delusion where the state is believed to exist only to serve capitalists (bankers) who control the means of production (means of transaction) and steal the fruit of the workers (entrepreneurs). Therefore abolish the state and some sort of stateless communist(capitalist) utopia will set in and all will live in non-coercive brotherhood for evermore at the end of history. Cute.

Beats watching the royal wedding.

The biggest gap I think there is is that people think that people who hate the state don't care about poor people.  People who hate the state generally do so BECAUSE they care about the little guy.

There are a lot of people who, while not necessarily being big statists, just assume that the state is necessary and do not give it another thought. I sure didn't think about it before I found myself in discussions about the state with friends. After that it was just a question of knowing more economics and history before I was convinced that the state is not a public good but a public bad.

But yes, it is hard to convince anybody, especially if they believe that they owe something to the state because it gives them free 'education' or healthcare or whatever, and think that without the state people could not afford these things. I strongly believe that this is false and that everybody would be better off if we stopped believing in violence as a means to our ends.

(Emphasis mine)

Exactly!  I was just debating with a friend the other day whether or not taxes really are theft.  I had to start the argument by explaining to him why the State does not own all his possessions.  He was willing to admit they they owned all money and therefore all his possessions, but when I suggested that the State then owned him, he didn't like it.  The legitimacy of the State is so engrained in us that many people practically offer themselves up as voluntary serfs.

I've seen rational debate with the right people.  It may or may not be possible here, or all the time here.  But it certainly is possible.

I think you're taking the Less Wrong article a little too literally, and in fact it seems to me that you are committing the same error of which it is warning. Your Blue/Green position is that rational debate is impossible. So you jump into otherwise somewhat rational debates and state that rational debate is not possible. Why not just go read something else instead?

If you truly think rational debate is impossible, you shouldn't be attempting to convince us so.

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

Exactly! Debates are about putting forth arguments that are convincing to the audience, not the debaters.

The other interesting thing is, although the person you are arguing with rarely changes his position, people reading threads DO change their positions more.

Kiba,

I appreciate that you are ideologically agnostic, but these debates such as these do have a purpose. As a Voluntaryist, this is one of the few methods available to me to affect change. I'll let the copypasta do the talking for me...

I disagree.  5 years ago, I was "lol anarchocapitalists'.

I don't know enough about Satoshi to know his motivations, but it could be an example.

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

Satoshi? Bitcoin?

I do not agree with the assumption that anarchy must devolve into statism.

1) A failed state is chaos, not anarchy.
2) A state derives its power from the consent of the people.
3) If that consent is withdrawn, the state has no power.
4) If anarchy provides a better life for people, they will protect it.

So, my plan is to attempt to convince as many people as I can that anarchy is preferable to statism. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, though I am cautiously optimistic that we'll see some small steps in that direction, especially due to the internet and (perhaps) Bitcoin. All that is required is a critical mass of individuals to ignore the state, and it will cease to have any power at all. There are many ways which an anarchy might protect itself from the aggression of other states - the use of miliatias, private defense organizations, assassination politics, etc.

Perhaps people will get states.  If you destroyed every church, would religion go away?  Of course not.  You need to actually convince people not to be religious for it to be meaningful.  The state is just another religion.  Can you convince enough people?  Maybe, maybe not.

And if those people are in the minority, life will not be pleasant for them.  If they are in the majority, then they will get away with it.

Again, tear down churches, new churches will be built.  Convince people to abandon religion, and they will not.


Again, see above.  Yes, if people reject violence on the whole, everyone will laugh at the next Caesar or Charlemagne.  If people support violence, then of course they will return.



While the pragmatic belief that we cannot convince people may be true, it won't stop me from trying.  The Koch brothers, lol, like they support anarchy.  They just want *their* version of the state.

Fought and died for the services the state now render us?  If someone was stupid enough to get themselves killed so I could get a monopoly of service from someone, let them roll in their graves.  I do support those who died to *keep* a monopoly of power from interfering in our lives, though.

But you do not need to convince everyone.  You just need to convince a few people.  They can convince a few more.  Eventually it will grow, or it will not.  Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

But there is no harm at all in teaching people that violence is wrong, even when its done by people with special uniforms.