Free Market in action - Boy dies because he didn't have 80 dollars

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Sell for-profit government services? Make money on imports? Such a government is not impossible.

First is the opposite of capitalism. Second is a tax.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

First is the opposite of capitalism. Second is a tax.

You're assuming the government is the exclusive producer of services. There's no reason government couldn't compete in the market with private producers. There would be nothing anti-capitalist about such a scheme.

Ok, tarriff is a tax, sort of, we can ignore that one.

Government contributions could also be voluntary.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Capitalism refers to a society based on the recognition of individual rights, and by proxy property rights; anarchy is a sort of floating abstraction and a theoretical impossibility wherein there's a society with no recognized organization. My question to a proponent of anarcho-capitalism is: how do you expect to guarantee rights with no authority to delineate them in law, and no objective central authority to determine when a violation has occured or how to resolve it?

Isn't that the point of anarchy though? That there exists no central authority? How can one be a complete capitalist without also being an anarchist? How can you fully support individual rights and property rights, yet support a government monopoly that violates those rights on a daily basis?

[thewise1]

I am going to use this story when it comes time to teach my little girl to brush her teeth

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by lew

Isn't that the point of anarchy though? That there exists no central authority? How can one be a complete capitalist without also being an anarchist? How can you fully support individual rights and property rights, yet support a government monopoly that violates those rights on a daily basis?

On the other hand how can your protect those rights without a government in place?

What would capitalism be like without property rights enforced by government? Without rules of the game, I don't see how capitalism could ever work.

In anarchy, stronger individuals are going to take over the weak and impose themselves, don't you think? I'm thinking Hobbes, Leviathan

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Phantom

On the other hand how can your protect those rights without a government in place?

What would capitalism be like without property rights enforced by government? Without rules of the game, I don't see how capitalism could ever work.

In anarchy, stronger individuals are going to take over the weak and impose themselves, don't you think? I'm thinking Hobbes, Leviathan

"a court system would emerge to peacefully arbitrate disputes between firms; and that a sensible legal code could be developed through custom, precedent, and contract. And in fact, notes the anarcho-capitalist, a great deal of modern law (such as the Anglo-American common law) originated not in legislatures, but from the decentralized rulings of judges."

No government needed...

Fed Up

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

"a court system would emerge to peacefully arbitrate disputes between firms; and that a sensible legal code could be developed through custom, precedent, and contract. And in fact, notes the anarcho-capitalist, a great deal of modern law (such as the Anglo-American common law) originated not in legislatures, but from the decentralized rulings of judges."

No government needed...

Fed Up

a court system would develop out of thin air? You can't seriously believe this, do you?

Of course some law originated in courts, but it would have no effect if there wasn't a sovereign to enforce the law/orders of the courts.

even if such a such a system "emerged," why would the loser in any dispute comply with court orders?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

"a court system would emerge to peacefully arbitrate disputes between firms; and that a sensible legal code could be developed through custom, precedent, and contract. And in fact, notes the anarcho-capitalist, a great deal of modern law (such as the Anglo-American common law) originated not in legislatures, but from the decentralized rulings of judges."

No government needed...

Fed Up

A set of laws (legal code) created by numerous court systems developing out of thin air means that anarchy no longer exists. Anarcho-capitalism is fine in theory, I'm fairly close to it on a theoretical level myself, but in reality I don't believe it could ever exist as a functional societal arrangement for more than a handful of months or years. It can never be a persistent arrangement.

Human beings crave leaders. Where there is a vacuum without leaders, the people will find someone to make into a leader. I'd rather there be a set ruling system such as our Constitution than a leader turned to and given absolute authority to fill a power vacuum.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Publius

Human beings crave leaders. Where there is a vacuum without leaders, the people will find someone to make into a leader. I'd rather there be a set ruling system such as our Constitution than a leader turned to and given absolute authority to fill a power vacuum.

Its not that we "crave" leaders is that leaders are a necessary evil or else there would be nothing but mob rule (I am not just talking about the majority) and destruction of rights. The constitution does not prohibit leadership - it actually encourages it through our republican form of government- it just sets limits on it .

Anarchism, communism are alike in that they both in theory attempt to prohibit the rise of leadership and its one reason - of many, many reasons - why those theories fail in the real world.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Its not that we "crave" leaders is that leaders are a necessary evil or else there would be nothing but mob rule (I am not just talking about the majority) and destruction of rights. The constitution does not prohibit leadership - it actually encourages it through our republican form of government- it just sets limits on it .

Anarchism, communism are alike in that they both in theory attempt to prohibit the rise of leadership and its one reason - of many, many reasons - why those theories fail in the real world.

Actually I think we as a species do indeed have an innate desire for leaders, we do crave them. We are at our most basic instinctual level a pack animal (or tribal, if you will). All pack animals turn to a strong leader, just look at wolves, lions, etc. or even closer to our own genetics and the living arrangement of apes and monkeys. All of them have individuals that lead the others.

Human beings are not by nature anarchist creatures, a tribal or pack mentality is built into our very instinctual triggers.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Publius

Actually I think we as a species do indeed have an innate desire for leaders, we do crave them. We are at our most basic instinctual level a pack animal (or tribal, if you will). All pack animals turn to a strong leader, just look at wolves, lions, etc. or even closer to our own genetics and the living arrangement of apes and monkeys. All of them have individuals that lead the others.

Human beings are not by nature anarchist creatures, a tribal or pack mentality is built into our very instinctual triggers.

your right, I agree with that - Human history shows as much

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Phantom

a court system would develop out of thin air? You can't seriously believe this, do you?

Of course some law originated in courts, but it would have no effect if there wasn't a sovereign to enforce the law/orders of the courts.

even if such a such a system "emerged," why would the loser in any dispute comply with court orders?

Um, yes...I do...especially when compared to the mess of a system we have today...

From Edward P. Stringham's book, "Anarchy and the Law" The Political Economy of Choice (I had met Ed last year at the Austrian Scholars Conference where I first learned about the Anarcho-Capitalism concept) Book can be found here (Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice):

"Merchants of medieval Europe evolved a low-cost institution to adjudicate disputes and enforce contracts with the threat of boycotts. Known as the Law Merchant, it facilitated long-distance trade by solving several problems: it induced traders to behave honestly, to boycott those who had behaved dishonestly, to keep informed about who had been dishonest, to provide evidence against those who had cheated, and to honor the decisions of private judges."


Historical Case Studies

"How have systems of non-governmental law enforcement actually functioned? In medieval England, where private parties solved disputes, punishment usually took the form of restitution for the injured party, explains Bruce Benson in chapter 34. By the time of the Norman Conquest, however, the king had declared that all restitution payments must go to the crown—which eliminated the incentive for private law enforcement and created the “need” for public law enforcement. In medieval Ireland, private juries settled disputes, and restitution rather than retribution was sought, explains Joseph Peden in chapter 35. In chapter 36, David Friedman describes medieval Iceland’s system of competing law enforcement, which lasted 300 years. People could choose which law-enforcement bodies to join and could switch at will, victims could transfer their right of compensation to a party more likely to collect the fine, and the system’s incentives worked to reduce conflict.

Europe’s medieval merchants often relied on private courts—the Law Merchant—to settle disputes because civil law couldn’t keep up with their growing needs. Merchants who refused to abide by those courts were blacklisted. In chapter 37, Paul Milgrom, Douglass North, and Barry Weingast present a formal game-theory model to show how that system’s incentives fostered cooperation.

Voluntary, non-government law enforcement can also be found in primitive societies. In chapter 38, Bruce Benson describes the voluntary customary legal system of the Kapauku Papuans of West New Guinea. It too is based on reciprocity, reputation, restitution, and a respect for individual property rights.

Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill describe non-governmental dispute resolution on the frontier of the American West in chapter 39. Land clubs helped establish property rights, cattlemen’s associations helped enforce them on the open range, mining camps settled mining claims, and wagon trains dealt with enforcement issues once people traveled beyond federal jurisdiction. In chapter 40, Robert Ellickson describes property-rights enforcement between ranchers and farmers in contemporary Shasta County, California. Rather than follow what the law stipulates, they rely on notions of what they consider right, which often differs significantly from the law."

Fed Up

[Publius]

Fed Up: you seem not to actually understand what the term anarchy means, because the simple act of developing a legal code with negative consequences for breaking them means anarchy is no longer a fitting term.

In anarchy it is possible to have mutual agreed upon rules of conduct, yes, but if one person does not agree to those rules and then is punished for it (i.e., blacklisted merchants in your example from medieval Europe), then they are no longer existing within a truly anarchist society. Instead it is a mob rule society that is more in line with pure democracy than with anarchy.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Publius

I'd rather there be a set ruling system such as our Constitution than a leader turned to and given absolute authority to fill a power vacuum.

I would agree with that....

I take the extreme right now because there is too much government. I might evolve to something else, but being a strict Constitutionalist is something our current government hasn't adhered to since at least 1913.

So, as a result of their non-adherence, what has become of this nation? So to counteract this, I take the side of no need for government, until some of these issues of adherence are resolved. So, by me even saying this, it seems under some of these new acts they are passing, I could be considered a terrorist.

"When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Isn't this what an Anarcho-Capitalist would do in providing "new guards?" But that's not to say adhering to the original Law of the Land isn't an option I would be unhappy with. Just look at the court case I post as my signature!

Fed Up

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Publius

Fed Up: you seem not to actually understand what the term anarchy means, because the simple act of developing a legal code with negative consequences for breaking them means anarchy is no longer a fitting term.

In anarchy it is possible to have mutual agreed upon rules of conduct, yes, but if one person does not agree to those rules and then is punished for it (i.e., blacklisted merchants in your example from medieval Europe), then they are no longer existing within a truly anarchist society. Instead it is a mob rule society that is more in line with pure democracy than with anarchy.

In the first paragraph I thought it addressed this, "it induced traders to behave honestly, to boycott those who had behaved dishonestly, to keep informed about who had been dishonest, to provide evidence against those who had cheated, and to honor the decisions of private judges."

I don't see this as "mob" rule.

Fed Up

[Fed Up]

....and just so you know....

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on Anarcho-Capitalism after just discovering it last year. I had spent my time preceeding that studying Austrian Economics and didn't even know this type of philosophy existed.

I do have fun doing the research and challenging people on its tenets though. I find this type of system much preferable in many aspects than our current one. For example, if you take the police out of government control and make them private, similar to guards at banks or malls, then the government doesn't have a tool to utilize in their march towards tyranny. I don't see this as a bad thing...

Firemen could be privately contracted out...

Hey, maybe the private enterprise might even give us a 300 mph train!

Obviously there's more to it than this...

....and yes, I'm a little "Fed Up!" with things as they are!

Fed Up

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Um, yes...I do...especially when compared to the mess of a system we have today...


"Merchants of medieval Europe evolved a low-cost institution to adjudicate disputes and enforce contracts with the threat of boycotts. Known as the Law Merchant, it facilitated long-distance trade by solving several problems: it induced traders to behave honestly, to boycott those who had behaved dishonestly, to keep informed about who had been dishonest, to provide evidence against those who had cheated, and to honor the decisions of private judges."

All of your examples require one thing - repeated interactions within the same group of people. If a community is small, isolated and depends on repeated interactions among members of the group, I agree it is possible for a voluntary system to work.

On a larger scale, where individuals for the most part are not involved in repeated transactions isolated to a small group of persons, that system falls apart. The incentive to cheat increases because the fallout from cheating decreases - the cheater can move to the next town/country etc. and cheat again.

Just like communism, it's a nice theory, but has no chance to work on a large scale.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Phantom

All of your examples require one thing - repeated interactions within the same group of people. If a community is small, isolated and depends on repeated interactions among members of the group, I agree it is possible for a voluntary system to work.

On a larger scale, where individuals for the most part are not involved in repeated transactions isolated to a small group of persons, that system falls apart. The incentive to cheat increases because the fallout from cheating decreases - the cheater can move to the next town/country etc. and cheat again.

Just like communism, it's a nice theory, but has no chance to work on a large scale.

Isn't your assumption that the next community would A. not know about the cheater from the prior community and B. not be ostracized because of his cheating from the new community?

....and for those of you who keep comparing it to communism, please cite how it is similar rather than just defaulting it as such.

Fed Up