Anarcho-Capitalism and human nature, real life discussion

[Romulus]

Without govt, how else would it centralize... private monopoly?

 

[jllundqu]

Without govt, how else would it centralize... private monopoly?

Possibly private monopolies would arise. Groups of people will always get together to centralize power and seek greater power and influence over others, with or without government.

 

[Romulus]

Possibly private monopolies would arise. Groups of people will always get together to centralize power and seek greater power and influence over others, with or without government.

But without govt, other groups can always challenge them. It's a better check and balance vs a guaranteed monopoly of power that we have now.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So, is his position that, human nature being what it is, governments (and by "governments" in this context I mean "states") are inevitable, and therefore anarchism is impossible? No matter what we do, the free market will always be overwhelmed by states?

Or that, human nature being what it is, governments are inevitable and therefore ought to exist? Whether as a moral good, necessarily evil, or counterweight to other states, etc?

For me, this is indeed a difference on kind, but I honestly don't think my dad would really make a distinction between the two. He just accepts the State as a given (like most people.)

The distinction is crucial, I think. To put it another way, you could say that, given human nature, violence is inevitable. Things like murder or theft are inevitable, and there will always be crime and corrupt individuals in any given society. But does that necessarily mean we ought to institutionalize crime? Take slavery for example. As a society we no longer accept slavery as a legitimate social institution. Though slavery in various forms does still exist in parts of the world, and many through history would have thought it inevitable and a fact of human nature. So this is not just a question of whether it's inevitable or not (it may very well be), but whether as a society we want to accept or tolerate the state as an institution, or recognize it for what it is.

I completely agree.

Maybe it would be easier to start with the difference between goverments and states? This is just a generalization of course, but a lot of conservatives I know will tend to view society as a struggle between order versus chaos, civilization versus barbarism, virtue versus immorality, law versus lawlessness, etc, etc... so your goal then should be to show how the state is not actually an agent of order or of civilization.

I've argued along similar lines, but ultimately, the State does provide a type of "order" its just a crappy type of order that nobody should want. People (Including him) complain about private police possibly fighting each other, but the State already does this.

Just know that MOST parents will NEVER listen to their kids, even with solid, logical arguments.

He listens, doesn't always agree, but listens. Frankly, I think its more the same social conditioning that made me take so long to get to where I'm at (And I have no idea I'm still continuing to grow... I haven't "arrived" by any means) but I'm not really the best person to explain anarcho-capitalism either. That said, out of all the people he knows, I'm pretty sure I'm the only person who knows anything at all about it.

All I know is that human nature is a bitch. We are capable of good and evil, both with and without governments. I think the endgame is to try and prevent the centralization of power both in terms of government, industry, banking, etc. In order to prevent the centralization of power without force, one must put faith and trust in human nature to accomplish this. My experience with humanity has led me to question that faith. I don't feel that stateless society would necessarily be a better one simply because power would centralize in other ways... it's in our DNA. So unless and until the very fabric of human nature changes, we must simply follow our moral compasses and work to prevent the centralization of power in all its forms. The constitution was a nice try, but human nature kicked the constitutions ass.

The constitution was good. The Articles of Confederation were better. Absolute statelessness would be best.

I don't trust in human nature for crap either. but, as Rothbard has pointed out, if all men are evil, than trying to centralize power in the hands of some evil men over others won't work.

Possibly private monopolies would arise. Groups of people will always get together to centralize power and seek greater power and influence over others, with or without government.

If there were a "private monopoly" on law, police, or courts it would just be another government. That couldn't happen without government, by the very definition of the same.

 

[July]

For me, this is indeed a difference on kind, but I honestly don't think my dad would really make a distinction between the two. He just accepts the State as a given (like most people.)

You said he was a consitutionalist? You could introduce him to the classical liberal definition of what a government is. It's basically the one in the DOI. A state isn't by the consent of the governed, and doesn't have anything to do with rule of law, it's motivated by conquest only.

I've argued along similar lines, but ultimately, the State does provide a type of "order" its just a crappy type of order that nobody should want. People (Including him) complain about private police possibly fighting each other, but the State already does this.

Ah well there you go. You lost the argument when you conceded that the state promotes social order (albeit a crappy one). A conservative would rather have an imperfect or crappy social order than none at all.

 

[familydog]

My dad disagreed with me, to which I replied "Well, this isn't really an issue of principle for me since ultimately I think the offices should be abolished anyway." Which led to a discussion on human nature.

My dad wasn't deliberately trolling when he said this, but he compared anarcho-capitalism to communism, saying that it sounded good in theory but couldn't be applied in practice due to human nature. We didn't really get to finish the discussion, but my position is that while anarcho-capitalism will likely never be applied, this has everything to do with insufficient support and nothing to do with human nature.

We're planning on finishing the discussion this afternoon, so I'm curious if any of you guys could help me here... how can I prove that market anarchism is not a violation of human nature? (Or, if you think it is, feel free to throw in your arguments for his side in here too)

Market anarchism is simply peaceful and voluntary transactions and commerce. Simply point out that he does not initiate the use of force on those around him. He is clearly in violation of his own pessimistic view if humanity. What people need to understand is that "human nature" is fluid. He, himself, is your proof.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Just my two cents regarding if "anarchism" or statelessness can exist peacefully and prosper..

In my opinion from what I've surmised from years of observing human nature in metropolitan ghettos I would acknowledge that might often equals right (for the purpose of time, I'll not get into details on why this is the case). If an anarchic society were to happen overnight, many would die. But what is the cost morally to propose any other option? That all suffer unduly with their potential squandered and their dreams subscribed to political whores? Is it really worth it? Now morally and fundamentally I would argue no, it is not worth it, even if the occurrence of statelessness meant less prosperity and more hardship. Earlier I referred to death and perhaps chaos. Hopefully the "right" people are the ones dying. That is, the ones who cannot be saved, and are a danger to society. Those who violently violate a being, if threatening life or limb, by all means should be quashed. After some period of this, perhaps a normalcy and respect within society could prosper.

Vendettas and feuds would not be unheard of -- Family retribution and mob "justice." It is worth noting that this is the case in many areas today under an iron fisted governance, so perhaps the point is moot.

With regards to "private police," the concept is abhorrent to the senses. We need no police. Especially if any semblance of the word "free" is to be strived for. Private or not, they need to go. Security is not the same as police. The people are their own police. It is everyone's duty to provide their own protection ultimately and morally one could argue they owe diligence for the community or society at large.

I think ultimately the question is not whether or not it is attainable, retainable, livable, prosperous, or safe but is a question of at what cost do we ignore our Natural Way and is ["statelessness"] ultimately what we all should strive for? To be as free as you were birthed? This is what people lacking conviction make up in understanding. We would be far safer, more prosperous, and more importantly Free if only people decided they had enough and recognized the power vested in themselves. That is the hard part -- our complacent and content populace. But because a majority are content with being led as sheep and commanded down upon much as a whipped dog, we should chalk up the loss? not attempt to change the conditions? make excuses? Hell no. This world will burn if people don't wake the fuck up. I give it under a hundred years.

 

[fr33]

I advise not using the phrase "anarcho capitalism" to people that aren't even into the label of libertarianism. While I do support it, anarcho capitalism is a combination of 2 words that scare the shit out of 90% of the population. Talk to your dad about liberty without using the ancap label.

 

[robert68]

Specific stuff that came up (My dad's arguments, although possibly reworded, in bold. My attempts at answering in non-bold italics)

So say two houses on one street are subscribing to Police Company A, in order to protect them from potential aggression. One house in between is subscribing to police company B. A police officer from company A is patrolling between the two houses. The person in the middle is on his front lawn being beaten up, but the police officer from Company A does nothing because this person is not paying for the services of said company.

My attempt at answering was something along the lines of the fact that it might end up being like tipping. The police officer might be socially, although not legally, expected to help this person, who in turn might socially, although not legally, be expected to pay some sum to the officer who stepped in. But, although nothing in this scenario would involve legalized aggression, I don't know whether or not it would actually work this way.

Restrictive covenants and their communities can address that and other potential problems that may arise in an ancap territory.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Restrictive+Covenant

Also, force isn’t necessarily always going to the best or most efficient way to protect person and property and render justice. In a mature ancap territory/society, private defense agencies could possibly have agreements with any combination of road owners, utilities companies, and banks, in order to, as per their agreement, be able to have those businesses suspend the services or benefits they may provide to an uncooperative suspect of a crime. Such business arrangements would naturally have to be in the self-interest of those road owners and/or utilities companies and/or banks; but since their customers need their person and property protected, it’s not hard to imagine conditions where such business arrangements would benefit them.

 

[Sanguine]

Capitalism in principle is based upon the dominance of others by fulfilling demand. You get people to buy your product, and you try to crush the competition. To those ends, mercenary forces would be hired and coercion would be employed. "Ideal" anarcho-capitalism cannot work simply because money is a form of political power, and political power is used to coerce in order to gain more power. Real anarchism would be far superior.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Capitalism in principle is based upon the dominance of others by fulfilling demand. You get people to buy your product, and you try to crush the competition. To those ends, mercenary forces would be hired and coercion would be employed. "Ideal" anarcho-capitalism cannot work simply because money is a form of political power, and political power is used to coerce in order to gain more power. Real anarchism would be far superior.

Please describe "real anarchism."

To me it sounds like collectivism or a majority ruling over the minority where people would be restricted from trading to whomever and however they see fit.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I advise not using the phrase "anarcho capitalism" to people that aren't even into the label of libertarianism. While I do support it, anarcho capitalism is a combination of 2 words that scare the shit out of 90% of the population. Talk to your dad about liberty without using the ancap label.

+1 "Voluntaryist" is a less "scary" word that means essentially the same thing. And there's a relatively short Voluntaryist Manifesto that can be referred to. (Google it)

 

[Sanguine]

Please describe "real anarchism."

To me it sounds like collectivism or a majority ruling over the minority where people would be restricted from trading to whomever and however they see fit.

The dissolution of markets through public ownership of the means of production and services. No one owns say, the factory but instead all are free to use it. Anarchism is a society without a central power structure, whereas anarcho-capitalism is centred around capital (and thus, those with more will be the ruling class). AC gives you choice, while Anarchism gives you choice and freedom without being dictated by the rich. Trade would not be restricted (generally speaking, you can't set a definitive rule in anarchism), it just means that no one could really seize the property of the public. Inevitably, it would lead to some form of collectivism (though so does every system), but it would be more at the communal level.

 

[mczerone]

If you want to talk about "human nature" getting in the way of a proposed system: fire back at him.

How is a Constitutional Representative Republic supposed to work in light of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, the Hotelling Problem, a Monopoly's (and Socialism's) inability to calculate prices and develop vertical supply systems, the impossibility of getting "spoils" (lobbyist rewards) out of the system, or Hayek's Knowledge Problem?

Those are all problems with human nature that are more than just speculation, and Voluntarism is okay with all of them.

Plus, how much "market anarchism" does your dad engage in each and every day? There's no stasi standing over every cup of coffee purchased, there's no govt regulator on his car limiting his speed or driving habits, etc.

Human Nature is simply looking out for yourself. And that encompasses charity, regulation, responsibility, and giving others due process before you condemn them. The state fails on all accounts.

 

[Sanguine]

If you want to talk about "human nature" getting in the way of a proposed system: fire back at him.

How is a Constitutional Representative Republic supposed to work in light of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, the Hotelling Problem, a Monopoly's (and Socialism's) inability to calculate prices and develop vertical supply systems, the impossibility of getting "spoils" (lobbyist rewards) out of the system, or Hayek's Knowledge Problem?

Those are all problems with human nature that are more than just speculation, and Voluntarism is okay with all of them.

Plus, how much "market anarchism" does your dad engage in each and every day? There's no stasi standing over every cup of coffee purchased, there's no govt regulator on his car limiting his speed or driving habits, etc.

Human Nature is simply looking out for yourself. And that encompasses charity, regulation, responsibility, and giving others due process before you condemn them. The state fails on all accounts.

Arrow's Theorem doesn't really need to be circumvented, though it could if the value of preference also includes corresponding negatives below the half of other choices, and if omissions could be made which set the preference to 0. In systems with an odd number of candidates, an extra box is added to the top and bottom. So, if B had equal placement on the top and bottom, it would at best receive a 0. If some of the votes for top placement went to the rank below, and the bottom stayed the same, it would be a negative placement. While that seems like it would not help, it keeps makes the proportion of preference represented within the community. That way there isn't a bias towards preference.

Socialism can't determine needs, and doesn't always have to. It could by all means determine price based on purely supply if it operates in a profitless environment, but such a society would require mass advances in technology in order to do so (it would have to keep track of the quantity of known resources). Hayek's calculation problem is still relevant today, but it may not be in future society.

Anarcho-Capitalism however is not compatible with human nature. In the absence of the state, the business will just employ mercenaries to help it achieve its ends. As the ends of the business is profit, it will aim for the elimination of competition to establish regional monopolies. The state is (self-interested, but still generally) held down by the opinions of the vast majority of its constituents, who obviously would not support such a takeover. Thus, the state provides protection to businesses from one another, but does not (again, generally speaking) protect criminal business. That is why gangs and cartels will establish territory for drug dealing/weapons smuggling/ect, and attack those that will reduce their profits. In some cases, they already create pseudo-states. In emulation, cartels will build hospitals, schools and such in villages to win people over and keep them silent. There are also the times that they'll shake down the village through coercion and murder.

Clearly, the answer isn't government or anarcho-capitalism, but true anarchism.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The dissolution of markets through public ownership of the means of production and services. No one owns say, the factory but instead all are free to use it. Anarchism is a society without a central power structure, whereas anarcho-capitalism is centred around capital (and thus, those with more will be the ruling class). AC gives you choice, while Anarchism gives you choice and freedom without being dictated by the rich. Trade would not be restricted (generally speaking, you can't set a definitive rule in anarchism), it just means that no one could really seize the property of the public. Inevitably, it would lead to some form of collectivism (though so does every system), but it would be more at the communal level.

The antithesis of liberty.

The "forgotten man."

Immoral.

Inefficient.

Collectivist.

Corrupt.

Authoritarian.

Your society would be as tyrannous as Bush's wetdreams. Beasts of England and all that.

 

[Sanguine]

The antithesis of liberty.

The "forgotten man."

Immoral.

Inefficient.

Collectivist.

Corrupt.

Authoritarian.

Your society would be as tyrannous as Bush's wetdreams. Beasts of England and all that.

Does everyone hear that? That's what criticism doesn't sound like. Please, do explain how it's "authoritarian" or "inefficient".

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Does everyone hear that? That's what criticism doesn't sound like. Please, do explain how it's "authoritarian" or "inefficient".

It is inefficient because you cannot adequately delegate resources as the free market would. It is inefficient because there is no incentive to save money when the costs are socialized and the funding guaranteed.

It is authoritarian because you wish to use popular edicts to restrict my Right to associate with who I wish, to buy what I wish, to sell for what I wish, and to live as I wish.

By the way, I typed you a response that I would love to hear back on. Your, "does everyone hear that," is hilarious considering it's been at least a week since you ducked out of a thread. I'll post the link momentarily.

ETA: It's also telling that the two things you wish to contest are 'authoritarian' (semantics, I bet, after reading another response of yours) and 'inefficient.' "The antithesis of liberty, ['A' and 'B' taking "C's" money], immoral, collectivist, and corrupt" you must concede, correct?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

And to further clarify post #38 I've been rebuking authoritarians for much too long. It gets monotonous. You got the cliff notes.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...bertarian-Solution-To-End-Homelessness/page11

When you get a chance, of course.

 

[Sanguine]

It is inefficient because you cannot adequately delegate resources as the free market would. It is inefficient because there is no incentive to save money when the costs are socialized and the funding guaranteed.

The market doesn't efficiently distribute resources either. Unless of course, efficiency means "to go to the pockets of the elite asap.

It is authoritarian because you wish to use popular edicts to restrict my Right to associate with who I wish, to buy what I wish, to sell for what I wish, and to live as I wish.

You don't buy in the first place. You trade maybe, but you don't buy. You don't live as you wish in anarcho-capitalism either.

By the way, I typed you a response that I would love to hear back on. Your, "does everyone hear that," is hilarious considering it's been at least a week since you ducked out of a thread. I'll post the link momentarily.

I get wrapped up in other threads and check up on those. I don't get reply notifications on here, so yeah I might forget about a thread after a while.

ETA: It's also telling that the two things you wish to contest are 'authoritarian' (semantics, I bet, after reading another response of yours) and 'inefficient.' "The antithesis of liberty, ['A' and 'B' taking "C's" money], immoral, collectivist, and corrupt" you must concede, correct?

You can't take a person's money when it doesn't exist. My god, it's as if anarchism is such a complicated idea for you. No one's taking anything from anyone.

..