No State vs Minarchism

[r3volution 3.0]

So I decide to put up a lightning rod, and the lowest proximity effective range I can find is 1 acre. And I need this, WE need this, for our safety. So I am right then to divvy up the cost between my neighbors and I, whether they are willing or not?

As I said, this has nothing to do with ethics. It's about whether the good gets produced or not.

Suppose you can't afford the lightening rod on your own. You'll have to get some of your neighbors to help pay for it. So you go around explaining the benefits and asking them to contribute. They all agree it would be beneficial. But each of them will benefit from it whether they contribute or not. So why would any of them contribute? They all hope that someone else contributes, so they can free ride. Consequently, not enough people donate and it never gets built.

Note that this is especially problematic for a large group. Suppose that the number of contributors required to produce the good is 1 million. If everyone contributes, the good gets produced. If not, not. Is it going to make any difference whether you contribute? No, you're just 1/1,000,000th of the total. You cannot meaningfully improve your chances of getting the good by contributing. So why contribute? And this is how it would be for national defense. It would have to be very large group contributing to the effort. Hence the problem. Security will be underproduced if you're relying on voluntary contributions.

But these things can be done voluntarily

No they can't (see above), which means in an ancap society they won't, which means security will be underproduced in an ancap society, which means an ancap society will be outcompeted militarily by a state (which can force people to pay for security and so doesn't have this problem). QED

And if they can't it is a sign that not enough people shared your desires, and that is no reason to carry out your desires forcefully.

Whether it should be produced is beside the point.

The point is that it won't be produced, which means an ancap society cannot defend itself.

 

[HVACTech]

I think Ron probably is. Why do you say he clearly isn't?



You would have to be woefully ignorant of it not to be dead-set against it. But if that's the case, then why are YOU here?

because I know what I am talking about? has THAT ever occurred to you?
can you formulate an argument that our Constitution is NOT an anti-statist document?

(sound of crickets chirping)..

Ron supports our Constitution.
so, does his son Rand.
are YOU asking me for PROOF of this fact?
your ignorance is on full display dude.
defend thyself.

(auto neg rep for stupid Anarchists)

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

As I said, this has nothing to do with ethics. It's about whether the good gets produced or not.

Suppose you can't afford the lightening rod on your own. You'll have to get some of your neighbors to help pay for it. So you go around explaining the benefits and asking them to contribute. They all agree it would be beneficial. But each of them will benefit from it whether they contribute or not. So why would any of them contribute? They all hope that someone else contributes, so they can free ride. Consequently, not enough people donate and it never gets built.

Note that this is especially problematic for a large group. Suppose that the number of contributors required to produce the good is 1 million. If everyone contributes, the good gets produced. If not, not. Is it going to make any difference whether you contribute? No, you're just 1/1,000,000th of the total. You cannot meaningfully improve your chances of getting the good by contributing. So why contribute?



No they can't (see above), which means in an ancap society they won't, which means security will be underproduced in an ancap society, which means an ancap society will be outcompeted militarily by a state (which can force people to pay for security and so doesn't have this problem). QED



Whether it should be produced is beside the point.

The point is that it won't be produced, which means an ancap society cannot defend itself.

Few things, first, you are trying to paint human action with an economics term, and then trying to paint how a society of such painted humans would fare. Second, how large your standing army is, how much resources you have wasted up until the conflict starts, tells no picture of a society's ability to defend itself.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Few things, first, you are trying to paint human action with an economics term,

Not sure how that's a criticism. Economics is a science of human action.

and then trying to paint how a society of such painted humans would fare.

Yes, economics makes predictions about how human beings will act.

Second, how large your standing army is, how much resources you have wasted up until the conflict starts, tells no picture of a society's ability to defend itself.

You mean that whether a society manages to produce military goods and services had no bearing on its ability to defend itself?

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Not sure how that's a criticism. Economics is a science of human action.

Economics is the study of human action.

Yes, economics makes predictions about how human beings will act.

And when you start with a poor thesis your prediction is bound to be wrong. 'Public good' is a poor thesis.

You mean that whether a society manages to produce military goods and services had no bearing on its ability to defend itself?

I'm saying that a society not stockpiling military weapons during a time of peace does not mean that that society cannot defend itself, which is what you are essentially saying :

The point is that it won't be produced, which means an ancap society cannot defend itself.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I think Ron probably is. Why do you say he clearly isn't?



You would have to be woefully ignorant of it not to be dead-set against it. But if that's the case, then why are YOU here?

Well played, brother.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again.

Sorry my +rep gun is out of ammo. Someone plz +rep my brother erowe for me, plz.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Not sure how that's a criticism. Economics is a science of human action.

Economics is the study of human action.]

Okay...?

Yes, economics makes predictions about how human beings will act.

And when you start with a poor thesis your prediction is bound to be wrong. 'Public good' is a poor thesis.

Explain why a person would contribute toward the production of a good if:
(a) whether he contributes or not has no effect on whether the good will be produced
(b) if the good is produced, he will benefit from it whether he contributed or not

The only possible answer is - altruism. He'll take one for the team. Well, that's not much to hang the survival of a society on.

It's like the communists thinking people will work, even though they can get the same goods from the common storehouse whether they work or not.

...in a society of angels, perhaps, but not here in planet Earth.

You mean that whether a society manages to produce military goods and services had no bearing on its ability to defend itself?

I'm saying that a society not stockpiling military weapons during a time of peace does not mean that that society cannot defend itself, which is what you are essentially saying

1. To have any value, production of military goods and services obviously has to begin before the war. Trained men, tanks, artillery, transport vehicles, etc, etc require a long time to produce. If you start producing them after the war begins, it's going to be over before they're finished.

2. Even if peacetime preparations weren't necessary, the public goods problem doesn't magically disappear once war breaks out. Ancapistan will still be unable to produce military goods and services in adequate quantities.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So you keep saying. But, as I've explained, it's not that minarchists are ignoring morality.

We just have a different view of morality than you.

How a Minarchist Makes a Moral Decision:
Step #1 - determine what would be ideal
Step #2 - determine what is possible
Step #3 - from amongst the possible options, choose the one closest to the ideal

How an Anarchist Makes a Moral Decision
Step #1 - determine what would ideal
Step #2 - choose that (even if it is impossible)

The minarchist view of morality is the normal one. It is how most people make moral decisions.

The anarchist one has ever been known as "utopian."

Ala, "reality is bad, therefore I reject reality."

This is a commonality between anarchists and the radical left.

That's just Winner's History. Minarchism is even more egalitarian and unrealistic than anarchism. (interesting aside: the Federalists kind of hint at this several times in The Federalist-hence the mental gymnastics they attempt.) The minarchists can't even come up with a coherent legal theory upon which to base everything else. It's just bullshit on stilts.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Minarchism is even more egalitarian and unrealistic than anarchism.

How so?

The minarchists can't even come up with a coherent legal theory upon which to base everything else.

How so?

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Okay...?



Explain why a person would contribute toward the production of a good if:
(a) whether he contributes or not has no effect on whether the good will be produced
(b) if the good is produced, he will benefit from it whether he contributed or not

The only possible answer is - altruism. He'll take one for the team. Well, that's not much to hang the survival of a society on.

It's like the communists thinking people will work, even though they can get the same goods from the common storehouse whether they work or not.

...in a society of angels, perhaps, but not here in planet Earth.

Simple, because they want the good produced. Not everyone is a freeloader, people understand that if no-one lifts a finger than nothing will get done. There are both selfish and altruist reasons for doing so.

1. To have any value, production of military goods and services obviously has to begin before the war. Trained men, tanks, artillery, transport vehicles, etc, etc require a long time to produce. If you start producing them after the war begins, it's going to be over before they're finished.

2. Even if peacetime preparations weren't necessary, the public goods problem doesn't magically disappear once war breaks out. Ancapistan will still be unable to produce military goods and services in adequate quantities.

1. Rubish. Have you ever worked in a factory? I don't give a shit what you're making, with enough manpower you can make a lot of it.

2. Why? As I said before, people value their life more than they value money. If money can generate the manpower hours needed to produce they military we have today, isn't it reasonable to think an actual threat would generate more?

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

So I decide to put up a lightning rod, and the lowest proximity effective range I can find is 1 acre. And I need this, WE need this, for our safety. So I am right then to divvy up the cost between my neighbors and I, whether they are willing or not?

I think you are overstating the difference between a leftist and your position. 'I want public education, therefore you have to pay for it', 'I want national defense, therefore you have to pay for it'. Do you think they believe any less that public education is so necessary that everyone must pay for it? You are putting your desires which you don't think can be achieved voluntarily ahead of freedom, and that is exactly what a leftist does, it is pretty much a life summary of Ralph Nader. But these things can be done voluntarily. And if they can't it is a sign that not enough people shared your desires, and that is no reason to carry out your desires forcefully.

I think most minarchists do realize that they are acting like liberals when they want to force others to pay for the services they think the markets can't produce effectively enough. So it's not like they don't "get it", it's just that they are so pre-occupied with the thought that "AnCap can't work", that just like liberals, they think it's "moral" to use force against others to provide for their selfish desires. As I've said, I was once a minarchist, & I did realize at the time the immorality of minarchism but I was too pre-occupied with the "AnCap can't work" thought.

But as years went by, I realized that as a minarchist, I wasn't significantly different than a liberal, in trying to propose a system that coerces people with the belief that "there's no better system out there". I realized that I couldn't propose equality of rights for all people under a minarchist system because obviously, the people in the government would have a right to rob others but not everyone would have that right equally; so a minarchy would have to either give up on the idea of equal rights for all or allow everyone to freely engage in robbery. And, after facing this realization & learning more about how the markets work, my views changed & I was no longer concerned about "AnCap can't work" because I realized that I must have faith in the markets, the same way that we expect liberals to have faith that in the absence of government services, markets will provide for similar & BETTER private services.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How so?

It posits that limited government is possible. Wholly unrealistic except on a very small scale (as in neighborhoods and communities). *Anarchists, on the other hand (especially Rothbardians), are good at creating practical models.

How so?

I don't know. They simply haven't bothered. My SWAG is that it's an impossibility. Note I linked you to "legal theory" so's you can learn about it. ~hugs~

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

the Anarchists are thick as thieves around here...

Ok, so minarchists are the one's supporting government thievery, & yet anarchists are "thick as thieves".......

they are all incapable of distinguishing that there is a very fine line of distinction between a minArchist and an Anarchist.

The line lies with regards to use of coercion. Either, one supports coercion against others to pay for government services that one finds desirable or one takes a moral stand on issues like equal rights & robbery; everyone from minarchists to state-communists agree on the former while AnCaps agree on the latter.

why are they here?

Because unlike most minarchists, Ron Paul philosophically agrees with AnCap, he even supports the concept of "individual-sucession" whereby individuals can choose to opt out of the government's system, pay no taxes & give up on the government benefits. Not to mention, Ron has been close friends with many AnCaps like Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard & so on. So clearly, Ron Paul isn't antagonistic towards AnCaps so tell us why are YOU here if you don't agree with Ron Paul?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Explain why a person would contribute toward the production of a good if:
(a) whether he contributes or not has no effect on whether the good will be produced
(b) if the good is produced, he will benefit from it whether he contributed or not

The only possible answer is - altruism. He'll take one for the team. Well, that's not much to hang the survival of a society on.

It's like the communists thinking people will work, even though they can get the same goods from the common storehouse whether they work or not.

...in a society of angels, perhaps, but not here in planet Earth.

Simple, because they want the good produced. Not everyone is a freeloader, people understand that if no-one lifts a finger than nothing will get done. There are both selfish and altruist reasons for doing so.

I see. So a communist society (where everyone gets the same ration whether he works or not) would not have an incentive problem, because the workers would "understand that if no one lifts a finger nothing will get done," and so they'd work just as hard as in a capitalist society?

1. To have any value, production of military goods and services obviously has to begin before the war. Trained men, tanks, artillery, transport vehicles, etc, etc require a long time to produce. If you start producing them after the war begins, it's going to be over before they're finished.

1. Rubish. Have you ever worked in a factory? I don't give a shit what you're making, with enough manpower you can make a lot of it.

You're telling me with a straight face that a modern military can be built from scratch instantaneously on the day war breaks out?

2. Even if peacetime preparations weren't necessary, the public goods problem doesn't magically disappear once war breaks out. Ancapistan will still be unable to produce military goods and services in adequate quantities.

2. Why?

For the same reason that communism has an incentive problem. See above.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I think most minarchists do realize that they are acting like liberals when they want to force others to pay for the services they think the markets can't produce effectively enough. So it's not like they don't "get it", it's just that they are so pre-occupied with the thought that "AnCap can't work", that just like liberals, they think it's "moral" to use force against others to provide for their selfish desires.

The difference is that markets can produce education, or medicine, or whatever else the left wants the government to produce. Whereas, the market cannot produce security on a competitive basis. Again, as I think I pointed out to you earlier, this analogy of yours is begging the question - assuming the very point in contention.

As I've said, I was once a minarchist, & I did realize at the time the immorality of minarchism but I was too pre-occupied with the "AnCap can't work" thought.

Pfft, yea, who cares if it "works." What's so great about reality, anyway?

my views changed & I was no longer concerned about "AnCap can't work" because I realized that I must have faith in the markets, the same way that we expect liberals to have faith that in the absence of government services, markets will provide for similar & BETTER private services.

It isn't faith that tells us that markets will produce education, medicine, et al better than the state - it's cold economic reasoning.

The same reasoning that tells us that markets cannot produce security.

Truly, anarcho-capitalism is a religion for some of you.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

It posits that limited government is possible. Wholly unrealistic except on a very small scale (as in neighborhoods and communities). *Anarchists, on the other hand (especially Rothbardians), are good at creating practical models.

Limited government has existed on a large scale and for long periods of time.

Anarcho-capitalism has never existed.

I don't know. They simply haven't bothered. My SWAG is that it's an impossibility. Note I linked you to "legal theory" so's you can learn about it. ~hugs~

You said that minarchist legal theory is incoherent.

I asked you to explain what is incoherent about it.

Now you say you don't know.

....okie doke

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

The difference is that markets can produce education, or medicine, or whatever else the left wants the government to produce. Whereas, the market cannot produce security on a competitive basis. Again, as I think I pointed out to you earlier, this analogy of yours is begging the question - assuming the very point in contention.

The Left knows that markets can produce education, medicine & whatever, after all they are not blind to not see private schools & stuff but they just think that the markets can't do it effectively enough; your argument is similar, as it deals with security, that the markets can't produce security effectively enough. Both are just opinions but the fact is that the markets produce things when there's a demand for a good or a service, & people willing to pay for it.

Pfft, yea, who cares if it "works." What's so great about reality, anyway?

Who cares about equality of rights, right? As I've said, it simply comes down to the fact that AnCaps put morality before utility.

It isn't faith that tells us that markets will produce education, medicine, et al better than the state - it's cold economic reasoning.

Ok, so markets can produce everything else but they can't produce security? That's not "economic reasoning", it's just an opinion, that's all. In reality, markets react to demand & profits, if there's enough demand with enough AnCap individuals willing to pay for it then the markets will provide security as well.



The fundamental issue with ANY system, be it AnCap, minarchy, anarcho-communism or whatever, is whether enough people are willing to support a system, & that creates a demand & a market for that system, & makes it a viable option. For example, we're living under a significantly socialist system because enough people support it; minarchy will be possible only when enough people support minarchy & the same goes for AnCap. Historical evidence is irrelevant to future innovation, there were no minarchies before enough people believed & supported the idea, & there will never be another minarchy until enough people believe & support it, & the same holds true for AnCap, if there are enough people who believe in equality of rights then there will be AnCap communities as well as security firms.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

You said that minarchist legal theory is incoherent.

I asked you to explain what is incoherent about it.

How about the fact that people in the government are allowed to rob but not everyone else.....

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The Left knows that markets can produce education, medicine & whatever, after all they are not blind to not see private schools & stuff but they just think that the markets can't do it effectively enough

Yes obviously, that's what I meant.

your argument is similar, as it deals with security, that the markets can't produce security effectively enough.

Yes, the difference being that my argument is correct and theirs is incorrect.

A rather important distinction...eh?

Both are just opinions but the fact is that the markets produce things when there's a demand for a good or a service, & people willing to pay for it.

...as if I haven't presented an argument to support my claim (which argument has not been refuted).

And no, repeating your assertion over and over does not a refutation make.

As I've said, it simply comes down to the fact that AnCaps put morality before utility reality.

FIFY

Ok, so markets can produce everything else but they can't produce security?

That's right, as I've been explaining for four pages.

That's not "economic reasoning", it's just an opinion, that's all. In reality, markets react to demand & profits, if there's enough demand with enough AnCap individuals willing to pay for it then the markets will provide security as well.

Again, you're completely ignoring everything I've said and just repeating your assertion.

The fundamental issue with ANY system, be it AnCap, minarchy, anarcho-communism or whatever, is whether enough people are willing to support a system, & that creates a demand & a market for that system, & makes it a viable option. For example, we're living under a significantly socialist system because enough people support it; minarchy will be possible only when enough people support minarchy & the same goes for AnCap. Historical evidence is irrelevant to future innovation, there were no minarchies before enough people believed & supported the idea, & there will never be another minarchy until enough people believe & support it, & the same holds true for AnCap, if there are enough people who believe in equality of rights then there will be AnCap communities as well as security firms.

Yes, if everyone were a zealous anarcho-capitalist, there can be anarcho-capitalism. Just as if everyone were a zealous anarcho-communist, there could be anarcho-communism. Put another way, anarcho-capitalism requires a New Libertarian Man, just as anarcho-communism requires a New Soviet Man. And this is all utopian nonsense, in both cases. There is only one kind of Man, and he will never behave in the way that either of those systems require him to.

Minarchy, on the other hand, does not require a New Minarchist Man. Ordinary, everyday Man will do.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You said that minarchist legal theory is incoherent.

I asked you to explain what is incoherent about it.

How about the fact that people in the government are allowed to rob but not everyone else.....

That would mean that minarchist ethics (or legal theory) does not grant everyone equal rights.

That's not incoherent though. Incoherence means internal contradiction.

You just don't like it. And neither do I, for that matter, but there's no alternative.

The only question is the extent to which the state shall aggress against people: minimally or otherwise.

There's no option for them not to aggress against people at all (i.e. there's no option for the state to not exist).