Anarcho-Capitalism and human nature, real life discussion

[Bastiat's The Law]

Your dad is right. Humans are tribal beings. Always have been, always will be. It's in our genetic makeup.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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

The market is always more efficient at allocating capital. Why? because they can fail. (or should fail anyways) The cost being socialized encourages waste and fraud, and pays for the laws and regulation that restrict entry into a given market. (written by trusts to bust trusts)

The "elite" are propped up by fasco-corporatist regulations and favors. If companies were to stand and fall by their own accord, a lot of those you call "elite" would have failed long ago. In your system there are hints (or direct overtones) that this would not happen. That even if there was inefficiency the costs would simply be socialized. Whether cost expressed in dollars or currency or expressed in time etc. there is a cost to it.

You don't buy in the first place. You trade maybe, but you don't buy.

You think humans will ever do away with money? With want? With wishing to trade? And what if I wanted 15 apples but only had car mufflers. Do I not need a middle "broker"? Is gold not convenient? It's as old as civilization. It is needed to gauge the market and dictate where capital is needed. It is, in fact, key to prosperity. Buying and selling should be consider an amicable parting of goods between voluntary parties. You act as if the word "sell" is inherently bad... or "buy" for that matter.

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.

It's all good.

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...

Money will always exist. A wish to trade, to produce, to better oneself... You act as if everyone considers themselves a slave. I like to work and produce. I like having the money to buy what I want when I want it. You go do your anarcho-communist society elsewhere. So long as you don't encroach on my liberty, and vice versa, we'd be fine. I suspect, or rather know, that that would not be the case. That the collectivist, legal positivist weights would come knocking for what they perceived was owed them. Otherwise you'd tell me as much firmly (that I would be free to do as I please so long as another wasn't violated) and acknowledge human rights as being natural to one's being.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Your dad is right. Humans are tribal beings. Always have been, always will be. It's in our genetic makeup.

I never denied that. But why does that require a State, as opposed to voluntary associations?

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I never denied that. But why does that require a State, as opposed to voluntary associations?

The state is just a more sophisticated hierarchy of power. Instead of fighting with swords for tribal leadership, now we do it with politics. It's a consequence of civilization and therefore inevitable.

This sense of hierarchy is built into our genetics by the way. The gestation period for a baby to be born is rather long and grueling, although modern medicine makes it somewhat easier and much less deadly. That newborn then has a much longer maturation process to become self-sufficient. This has lead the human species and hominids before them to congregate in extended families, clans, and tribes. The family unit is the first hierarchy of power you encounter, and throughout history usually male dominated. The next hierarchy of power you encountered would've been your extended family or tribe. In many ways the family/tribe are the first "state". The emergence of agriculture allowed for civilization and permanency in a certain geographic area; naturally this led to an evolution of the process to determine tribal leader(s).

 

[Occam's Banana]

Your dad is right. Humans are tribal beings. Always have been, always will be. It's in our genetic makeup.

I never denied that. But why does that require a State, as opposed to voluntary associations?

The state is just a more sophisticated hierarchy of power. Instead of fighting with swords for tribal leadership, now we do it with politics. It's a consequence of civilization and therefore inevitable.

This sense of hierarchy is built into our genetics by the way. The gestation period for a baby to be born is rather long and grueling, although modern medicine makes it somewhat easier and much less deadly. That newborn then has a much longer maturation process to become self-sufficient. This has lead the human species and hominids before them to congregate in extended families, clans, and tribes. The family unit is the first hierarchy of power you encounter, and throughout history usually male dominated. The next hierarchy of power you encountered would've been your extended family or tribe. In many ways the family/tribe are the first "state". The emergence of agriculture allowed for civilization and permanency in a certain geographic area; naturally this led to an evolution of the process to determine tribal leader(s).

Translation: Because ... um ... tribalism! And genetics! Um ...

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Translation: Because ... um ... tribalism! And genetics! Um ...

You're free to run an experiment in the real world and prove me wrong.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You're free to run an experiment in the real world and prove me wrong.

What experiment? Prove you wrong how? You haven't said anything that is even remotely testable in the "real world" - not even theoretically testable.

You also have a deeply flawed understanding of what "experiments" are for (or are capable of "proving") if you really imagine that it is meaningful (or even possible) to "run an experiment" in such a context - which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your scientistic invocations of "genetics" and the like.

You've done nothing but proffer a bunch of elaborate handwaving about "hierarchies" (and "hominids" and "gestation" and so forth) - as if any of it somehow has anything dispositive to do with the question of whether or not it is possible for a civil society to exist without one particular kind of all-encompassing socio-political "hierarchy" (i.e., the State) being forcibly imposed by a small group of elites upon everyone else.

 

[otherone]

What experiment? Prove you wrong how? You haven't said anything that is even remotely testable in the "real world" - not even theoretically testable.

I'd be interested in hearing why you believe things are the way they are.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'd be interested in hearing why you believe things are the way they are.

"Things the way they are" (or were, or could be) is a vast subject area with uncountably myriad "whys" involved.
Organic & dynamic interactions between those myriad "whys" makes the subject even more complex & intractable.
Glibly simplistic & scientistic invocations of "genetics" and "tribalism" and such are not even remotely adequate to the task.

 

[otherone]

"Things the way they are" (or were, or could be) is a vast subject area with uncountably myriad "whys" involved.
Organic & dynamic interactions between those myriad "whys" makes the subject even more complex & intractable.

Glibly simplistic & scientistic invocations of "genetics" and "tribalism" and such are not even remotely adequate to the task.

Before we can create change, don't we need to investigate how and why things are the way they are, at least at some level?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Before we can create change, don't we need to investigate how and why things are the way they are, at least at some level?

My comments thus far have not had anything at all to do with the question of "creating change." That is an entirely different matter from the question of whether or not a stateless society is possible. The first question asks "how do we get from A to B?" while the second question asks "can there be a C?" (not "how do we get to C?" - which is a different matter altogether). The "whys and wherefores" involved in each of those questions are of an essentially different nature. The first question involves very specific factors existing in the concrete "here and now," while the second question concerns the realm of general & abstract "possibility."

With the above caveat in mind, I'll offer the following cursory answer to your question:

It depends on what you are referring to by "things the way they are." What things, exactly? (Just "things" is far, far too general to be of any use.) It also depends on what exactly you mean by "create change." From what? To what? Under what circumstances?

The more closely the answers to those questions are tied to a limited and particular set of historically contingent circumstances (i.e., some specific time & place, culture, etc.), the more likely we are to be able to get something of a useful "grip" on the "whys & wherefores" that are involved. But there is a trade-off here, in that our "whys & wherefores" become critically dependent on those previously mentioned historically contingent circumstances. Under different circumstances, you'll be dealing with different "whys & wherefores" - and this shift in parameters will change the range of what is or is not possible. (This is why it is bogus to try to use history to "prove" that something - such as voluntaryist anarchism - is not possible. It's like looking at the Moon and Mercury and Mars - and then concluding that oceans of liquid water are not possible).

 

[otherone]

But there is a trade-off here, in that our "whys & wherefores" become critically dependent on those previously mentioned historically contingent circumstances. Under different circumstances, you'll be dealing with different "whys & wherefores" - and this shift in parameters will change the range of what is or is not possible. (This is why it is bogus to try to use history to "prove" that something - such as voluntaryist anarchism - is not possible. It's like looking at the Moon and Mercury and Mars - and then concluding that oceans of liquid water are not possible).

A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Not to get pithy here, but isn't it of benefit to investigate human nature in any political conversation? I'm not so concerned about the possibility of anarchism per se, but more as to how the world devolved into the toilet bowl that it is. Do you believe there are any "truisms", like the quote above? Do you think the findings of the Milgram Experiment to be of any value? Most of the US embraces the idea of a strong central government...why?

 

[Occam's Banana]

What experiment? Prove you wrong how? You haven't said anything that is even remotely testable in the "real world" - not even theoretically testable.

I'd be interested in hearing why you believe things are the way they are.

Also, I would like to emphasize that the above quote by me was intended to highlight the absurdities inherent in BTL's suggestion that methods of the natural sciences (such as "experiments") can be used to arrive at conclusions about human society (or any area in which the element of purposeful human action is a factor).

It is in this context that I should be understood when I said the following (in response to your above-quoted post):

"Things the way they are" (or were, or could be) is a vast subject area with uncountably myriad "whys" involved.
Organic & dynamic interactions between those myriad "whys" makes the subject even more complex & intractable.
Glibly simplistic & scientistic invocations of "genetics" and "tribalism" and such are not even remotely adequate to the task.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The state is just a more sophisticated hierarchy of power. Instead of fighting with swords for tribal leadership, now we do it with politics. It's a consequence of civilization and therefore inevitable.

The state is a consequence of civilization? Oh please. The State DESTROYS civilization.

This sense of hierarchy is built into our genetics by the way. The gestation period for a baby to be born is rather long and grueling, although modern medicine makes it somewhat easier and much less deadly. That newborn then has a much longer maturation process to become self-sufficient. This has lead the human species and hominids before them to congregate in extended families, clans, and tribes. The family unit is the first hierarchy of power you encounter, and throughout history usually male dominated. The next hierarchy of power you encountered would've been your extended family or tribe. In many ways the family/tribe are the first "state". The emergence of agriculture allowed for civilization and permanency in a certain geographic area; naturally this led to an evolution of the process to determine tribal leader(s).

OK, if you're defining "State" in such a broad sense that it can include the family, even the extended family, than my view of "The State" would change. But that's just a useless definition of "State" IMO. It has no relation to the predatory monopoly on the right to use force in a given territorial area that anarcho-capitalists object to.

On the other hand, I don't see what relation exactly ANY human associations, even the family, have to do with childbirth. Childbirth is a biological issue, while both the family and the State are social issues. The difference is that the family is not an institution that claims a monopoly on the right to use force, or to control people, like the State.

Also, I would like to emphasize that the above quote by me was intended to highlight the absurdities inherent in BTL's suggestion that methods of the natural sciences (such as "experiments") can be used to arrive at conclusions about human society (or any area in which the element of purposeful human action is a factor).

It is in this context that I should be understood when I said the following (in response to your above-quoted post):

All that said, I do think BTL made one interesting point. Should we just be waiting for the State to collapse on itself? (Presumably along with taking actions to speed up its collapse... like trying to convince people that their favorite institution is really just a gang of thieves, voting for candidates that you believe will seriously roll back the size of The Beast, etc.) or should we be actively trying to create an anarchistic society in some area?

 

[otherone]

The state is a consequence of civilization? Oh please. The State DESTROYS civilization.

The history of the state and civilization are intertwined.

 

[Occam's Banana]

A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights. - Napoleon Bonaparte [...]

Do you believe there are any "truisms", like the quote above?

If by "truism" you mean "very broad & general descriptions of behaviors exhibited by at least some people at least some of the time," then I suppose I cannot but agree that there are indeed such things. I am not sure what this is supposed to indicate, however, since such "truisms" cannot be consistently & universally applied.

sn't it of benefit to investigate human nature in any political conversation?

In some political conversations it can be beneficial to do so - but not in others.
(For example, "human nature" really doesn't come into debates over whether the "fair" tax is "better" than the "flat" tax ...)

When it is beneficial, the proper use and understanding of praxeology (and its limits) are essential with respect to such investigations.
Appeals to aphoristic "truisms" or scientistic reductionisms (ala "genetics" or whatnot) - not so much.

I'm not so concerned about the possibility of anarchism per se, but more as to how the world devolved into the toilet bowl that it is.

Well ... all my posts in this thread have been concerned about the possibility of anarchism per se - and not at all with how the world devolved into the toilet bowl that it is. So I'm not really sure why you're interrogating me concerning the latter rather than former ...

(I'm not upset or bothered by this - just mystified. IOW: "Whatchoo askin' me for, man?" )

Do you think the findings of the Milgram Experiment to be of any value?

LIke Napoleon's epigram, the results of Milgram's "experiment" are certainly of value as an illustration of certain behaviors to which some people are prone under some circumstances - but that is as far as you can take it. The only thing it can be said to have "proven" is that those particular people in those particular circumstances (contrived by Milgram) behaved in those particular ways. Nothing more. It certainly does NOT serve to "prove" anything about what other particular people will or will not do in similar (or even identical) circumstances. At absolute best, it only suggests what some people might be likely to do - a very important and useful thing to be aware of, to be sure. But such "experiments" do not allow us to arrive at the sort of conclusions that experiments in the natural sciences (such as physics or chemistry) allow us to arrive at. This is because people are not like photons or planets. Photons and planets do not make choices or engage in purposeful action. This is why we can very successfully & usefully predict the paths of photons & the orbits of planets - but NOT the courses of economies (except in the most general terms) ...

Most of the US embraces the idea of a strong central government...why?

The compass of this question is so vastly general that I can only reiterate what I said before:

[This] is a vast subject area with uncountably myriad "whys" involved.
Organic & dynamic interactions between those myriad "whys" makes the subject even more complex & intractable.

 

[otherone]

Well ... all my posts in this thread have been concerned about the possibility of anarchism per se - and not at all with how the world devolved into the toilet bowl that it is. So I'm not really sure why you're interrogating me concerning the latter rather than former ...

(I'm not upset or bothered by this - just mystified. IOW: "Whatchoo askin' me for, man?" )


Like Napoleon's epigram, the results of Milgram's "experiment" are certainly of value as an illustration of certain behaviors to which some people are prone under some circumstances - but that is as far as you can take it. The only thing it can be said to have "proven" is that those particular people in those particular circumstances (contrived by Milgram) behaved in those particular ways. Nothing more. It certainly does NOT serve to "prove" anything about what other particular people will or will not do in similar (or even identical) circumstances. At absolute best, it only suggests what some people might be likely to do - a very important and useful thing to be aware of, to be sure. But such "experiments" do not allow us to arrive at the sort of conclusions that experiments in the natural sciences (such as physics or chemistry) allow us to arrive at. This is because people are not like photons or planets. Photons and planets do not make choices or engage in purposeful action. This is why we can very successfully & usefully predict the paths of photons & the orbits of planets - but NOT the courses of economies (except in the most general terms) ...

C'mon now, you are being evasive. Even Protons and Planets only behave based on conditions as we understand. Society relies on the MAJORITY of people behaving in particular ways, not ALL of them. No one who studies behavior claims ALL people react the same in a given situation. But with some reliable, albeit anecdotal, evidence, I can assure you that the vast majority of people stop at red lights. At the least, we can safely say that given a choice, people act in their perceived best interest? Just because people have choice doesn't mean that patterns aren't easily recognized.
By the way, I'm asking you because I respect your opinion. In regards the OP, I have no doubt that man is a tribal animal, but I don't think that precludes a voluntary society. My very biased opinion is that man is a fearful, self-absorbed, self-deceptive animal that will stretch the boundaries of his moral fences to justify obtaining anything he wants, from the halls of Capitol Hill all the way down to the aisles of Walmart on Black Friday.

 

[Occam's Banana]

C'mon now, you are being evasive.

How so? What have I evaded? I took care to individually address each one of the questions you asked. I answered some in more detail than others - and I may not have provided answers that you like or agree with - but I don't see how I have "evaded" anything.

Even Protons and Planets only behave based on conditions as we understand.

But protons & planets don't make choices based on the conditions in which they find themselves. They do not have purposes towards the achievement of which they are working. People do. That is why the behavior of protons & planets is consistently predictable, but the behavior of humans is not. That is why we can plan skyscrapers and spaceships, but not economies or "societies."

Also, when it comes to those "conditions as we understand [them]," we are able to understand and control (for) those conditions precisely because things like protons & planets don't "mess the picture up" and unaccountably complicate the situation by being able to act for their own purposes. Because of this, we are able to conduct consistently repeatable experiments in which we can limit & control variables and change circumstances in very specific and highly precise ways. We simply cannot do that - not even theoretically (let alone practically) - when it comes to "experiments" involving people and their behavior (and certainly not when it comes to entire "societies").

Society relies on the MAJORITY of people behaving in particular ways, not ALL of them.

Society does not rely on anything. Strictly speaking, it does not even exist - at least, not as some kind of "thing" that "relies" or "acts" (or is "acted upon") or "does" (or is "done to") or etc. "Society" is just a shorthand expression used to denote the general state of affairs that results from the behaviors of ALL the individual people in some particular place/region at some particular time. So I would rephrase your statement as follows:

"Society *is* people (ALL and each of them in a particular place/region at a particular time) behaving in particular ways."

No one who studies behavior claims ALL people react the same in a given situation. But with some reliable, albeit anecdotal, evidence, I can assure you that the vast majority of people stop at red lights. [...] Just because people have choice doesn't mean that patterns aren't easily recognized.

I haven't said anything that contradicts any of this. Just the opposite, in fact. As I explicity acknowledged in my previous post:

"[Things like Napoleon's epigram and] Milgram's 'experiment' are certainly of value as [illustrations] of certain behaviors ... a very important and useful thing to be aware of,"

At the least, we can safely say that given a choice, people act in their perceived best interest?

Of course we can. We can say a very good deal more than that, as well. The entire field of praxeology is dedicated to the study of human action - and of all the things we can say with absolute apodictic certainty about human action & behavior. The entire school of Austrian economics is founded upon the methods of praxeology and the principles of human action.

But unlike the products of praxeology, things like aphorisms, anecdotes and "experiments" cannot provide us with apodictically certain knowledge. Aphoristic expressions may certainly be useful & valuable as summations of general (but usually non-universal) observations about human behavior & action, and "experiments" can provide potent illustrations or examples of "human action in action" - but they cannot "prove" anything about universal human nature, one way or the other. (If you think that they can, I strongly encourage you to write your results up and submit them for publication. If you are correct, you will overthrow the whole of Austrian economics. Not that I want Austrian economics to be overthrown - but if you are right and they are wrong, the truth should come out ...)

By the way, I'm asking you because I respect your opinion.

Thank you. And I yours.

In regards the OP, I have no doubt that man is a tribal animal, but I don't think that precludes a voluntary society.

I agree. Humans are social beings, and their interactions will produce myriad "hierarchies" (such as tribalistic arrangements, among many, many others). There is nothing in this fact that either precludes statelessness or requires the existence of the State.

My very biased opinion is that man is a fearful, self-absorbed, self-deceptive animal that will stretch the boundaries of his moral fences to justify obtaining anything he wants, from the halls of Capitol Hill all the way down to the aisles of Walmart on Black Friday.

I would say "some men" (perhaps "many men") rather than "man" in general. I would further qualify myself by specifying "in this or that particular time & place (such as 'today's America')."

In any case, whether it be "some" or "all" - or "here & now" or "all the time & everywhere" - why give such vile and/or pathetic creatures as potent a weapon as the State?

 

[Sanguine]

The market is always more efficient at allocating capital. Why? because they can fail. (or should fail anyways) The cost being socialized encourages waste and fraud, and pays for the laws and regulation that restrict entry into a given market. (written by trusts to bust trusts)

What is being "efficient"? The market, being focused on disparity of exchange, doesn't really allocate capital efficiently, except if considered to the elite. Think about it, a worker isn't paid the full value of their labour. Instead, the majority of the value of said labour is not paid to the worker, and sent up the ladder to the top. As such, the worker making the product or providing a service doesn't earn as much in comparison to those at the top.

The "elite" are propped up by fasco-corporatist regulations and favors. If companies were to stand and fall by their own accord, a lot of those you call "elite" would have failed long ago. In your system there are hints (or direct overtones) that this would not happen. That even if there was inefficiency the costs would simply be socialized. Whether cost expressed in dollars or currency or expressed in time etc. there is a cost to it.

Those standing would just become more powerful though. As those companies fall down or are bought out, the remainder stand tall. In other words, monopolies will establish themselves. In my favoured system, companies wouldn't fall down, as they don't really exist to begin with.

You think humans will ever do away with money? With want? With wishing to trade? And what if I wanted 15 apples but only had car mufflers. Do I not need a middle "broker"? Is gold not convenient? It's as old as civilization. It is needed to gauge the market and dictate where capital is needed. It is, in fact, key to prosperity. Buying and selling should be consider an amicable parting of goods between voluntary parties. You act as if the word "sell" is inherently bad... or "buy" for that matter.

You don't need money to trade, and if resources are open to all and distributed based only on supply, trade isn't needed. Everyone would have access to whatever they desire, so long as it's reasonable.

It's all good.



Money will always exist. A wish to trade, to produce, to better oneself... You act as if everyone considers themselves a slave. I like to work and produce. I like having the money to buy what I want when I want it. You go do your anarcho-communist society elsewhere. So long as you don't encroach on my liberty, and vice versa, we'd be fine. I suspect, or rather know, that that would not be the case. That the collectivist, legal positivist weights would come knocking for what they perceived was owed them. Otherwise you'd tell me as much firmly (that I would be free to do as I please so long as another wasn't violated) and acknowledge human rights as being natural to one's being.

Communalists have this fun habit of not really caring about the outside world, so long as others leave them alone. Technocopianists don't really care either. They aren't going to tell others to be part of society, or force them to do it, and rather take the same stance for those that aren't with them.

Though rights aren't really natural to one's being. A lot of socialists would disagree with me there, but rights are restrictions of persons to their behaviour towards another, and those rights aren't enforced. Only through contracts do rights really come from. Arguing God or whatever as an origin for those rights doesn't really work because deities don't really enforce "natural" rights.

 

[TheGrinch]

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

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.

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.

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.

So free trade, but no money? Ummm, okay...

Money is the necessary conclusion to free trade. Otherwise I'm going to be sitting here with my 16 chickens waiting and hoping that a purchaser who happens to need what I have right now and also happens to have the things I need to trade for will come along. It's incredibly inefficient and can be flat out wasteful with perishables that you've just made it much tougher to exchange for what you need. Seriously, do you realize how much that would limit free trade? Well, actually it won't, because traders won't let it if they have a more efficient way.

Money was created as a medium for exactly that reason. You know what would happen if you eliminated money? People would find something else that has accepted value to everyone and trade with that instead. End result, you guessed it, money. You cannot simply eliminate money. The market (no not like a stock market, I mean your traders in your scenario) would always opt for this over bartering. It's far more efficient and the necessary conclusion to free trade.

Now that the economics 101 lesson has concluded, maybe we should discuss some PoliSci101, because communism/socialism (or whatever variant you subscribe to) does not work on a large scale for the simple reason that it lacks the proper motivation, when resources are shared and there is no incentive to give more than you take, and little incentive to innovate or do more than you have to.

On a small scale, sure. There are plenty of small rural towns where a communal attitude still exists to some degree, but this isn't antithetical to capitalism, making (trading) the equal amount of what you produce for society.

So this is where I'm confused. If you have trade/bartering (and thus money), that sounds a hell of a lot like anarcho capitalism, even if there is a communal attitude (In fact I don't think anarcho-capitalism is possible either on a large scale without a paradigm shift away from things our consumerist and greedy priorities, and towards more cooperative and advancing ones).

Anarcho-capitalism would not negate the possibility of communal socialism (on a small scale, the only way it works), but your system isn't getting rid of free market capitalism either. Where there is trade, capitalism exists. It is not a dirty word once you remove the "crony" out of capitalism and replace it with free.

Aside from that, I'll probably exit this conversation now, as the way that I've heard anarco-capitalism could actually work, it sounds an awful lot like minarchism. I think we can all agree (aside from maybe our socialist friend here) that the more localized and accountable, the better it's going to work.