NationStates Jolt Archive

What law? This is mob rule/anarchy. If the non-consenters are more powerful than the majority, then they're really in charge in the first place. If they've hired some sort of "protection insurance" that allows "free-riders", then they're under the authority of a new state anyway.

Exactly, if the majority wants to evict/banish/destroy the non-consenters, they can.

Nope, try again. I keep providing examples of what has and is happening. You keep claiming that something completely opposite will happen.

That it has not happened is no argument for "it can't happen".

Considering that all power structures throughout time have been organized to combat anarchy, it seems very possible that the failure of anarchy to take any major hold is not systematic of anarchy, but a result of despots, prime ministers, emperors, congressmen, chiefs, priests and all of those who tolerate their abuses.

Only if it measures the true cost of those services. Not everyone receives equal benefit from them, especially not the productive.
Prove it.

First off, to say that everyone derives equal utility from government service is an absurdity. It requires that each contributes and derives value from government at an equal level to everyone else, and no one could argue that point.

Now secondly, you appear to be arguing that government can offer services at a low cost, namely at one lower than private industry can. Now, while it is difficult to show that government operates at a lower cost (of course the USPS operates at generally a loss of $1 billion dollars a year even with 1.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies), there is a general law of economics that competition, namely the elimination of those who operate at higher costs, has a direct downward force on prices and costs.

Businesses who find ways to cut costs (new technology, less waste, more efficient production, lower acceptable rate of return) will inherently outlast those who cannot. In the market there is constant pressure towards the lowest cost production possible. Since government services do not act upon the market, they do not have this pressure, and therefore it would be a profound coincident if government behaved at lowest cost.

Oh, I understand congestion. You make the unsupported assertion that happy-anarchy land could fix that.

It is not how they will that is important, it is whether they will. The profit motive provides ample reason to assume that business will offer the most utility to the most consumers, as offering utility is the only way a business creates profit. Since government provision is not contingent on the utility it provides its consumers, it is simply able to tell the customers when or when they can't use a road.

So presumably it is perfectly okay for parents to abandon their children. Okay. Makes sense.

Europa has brought me some libertarian thought that because parents put their children in a situation of extreme dependence without the child's consent and thus owe recompsense. Interesting, but kind of dodgey because that line of thought could easily lead to all kinds of non-contractual rights and obligations.

What law? This is mob rule/anarchy.

Anarchy is not mob rule.

If the non-consenters are more powerful than the majority, then they're really in charge in the first place. If they've hired some sort of "protection insurance" that allows "free-riders", then they're under the authority of a new state anyway.

How does an insurance provider = state?

Europa has brought me some libertarian thought that because parents put their children in a situation of extreme dependence without the child's consent and thus owe recompsense. Interesting, but kind of dodgey because that line of thought could easily lead to all kinds of non-contractual rights and obligations.

It seems kinda shakey to me. Maybe you could get an insurance company to deal with the child.

Anarchy is not mob rule.



How does an insurance provider = state?

Since there would be no state and no public law enforcement, presumably, these private police/insurance companies would have to have tanks and basically armies and such, right? Therefore, they become the most powerful force around. They become the state through force, basically.

Upon birth, the parents are given ownership of the child in trustee form.

Great, now we get ownership of people. And of course, if you can own something, you can sell something.

Actually I always wondered how libertarians argued for parental authority over children. It can't be a consensual contract as minors do not have the faculties to genuinely understand or consent to it. Also, what responsibilities parents have to their children? If I do not contract with my child is it ok for me to leave them outside and let them die of exposure? I'm not doing anything explicitly to end their life ,and since I don't have any contractual obligations to him/her I don't need to help them.

Upon birth, the parents are given ownership of the child in trustee form.

Since there would be no state and no public law enforcement, presumably, these private police/insurance companies would have to have tanks and basically armies and such, right? Therefore, they become the most powerful force around. They become the state through force, basically.

Non sequitor.

They become a privately contracted defense force who is extremely hesitant to use force.

Non sequitor.

They become a privately contracted defense force who is extremely hesitant to use force.

Why are they hesitant to use force? There is no one to punish them, no oversight really. Also, if there is competition, why shouldn't the bigger of say, two of these 'contracted defense forces' simply crush the other one and give themselves a monopoly?

Upon birth, the parents are given ownership of the child in trustee form.

And if the parents do not wish trusteeship does that mean they can put a child outside and let them die of exposure? How is trusteeship different from temporary slavery?

Why are they hesitant to use force? There is no one to punish them, no oversight really. Also, if there is competition, why shouldn't the bigger of say, two of these 'contracted defense forces' simply crush the other one and give themselves a monopoly?

Because arbitration lawyers are cheaper to operate than tanks.

Because arbitration lawyers are cheaper to operate than tanks.

But slaves are well worth the costs in the long run.

"private security insurance firms" have been tried before, it was called feudalism and serfdom.

And if the parents do not wish trusteeship does that mean they can put a child outside and let them die of exposure? How is trusteeship different from temporary slavery?

Trusteeship places negative obligations upon the parents and others not to abuse the child.

It doesn't, however, place positive obligations on the parents, so yes, they do not have to take care of the child.

And yes, it does allow for the sale of children.

Trusteeship places negative obligations upon the parents and others not to abuse the child.

It doesn't, however, place positive obligations on the parents, so yes, they do not have to take care of the child.

And yes, it does allow for the sale of children.

Great. Oh, and who exactly is giving the ownership?

At least under contractualism the person can freely accept the added cost of the free rider, where under socialism he is forced to accept the added cost of the free rider at gun point.

Don't bring up the free-rider problem when you plan to enforce it.Under socialism, no such thing occurs. I see no reason why someone who can work but doesn't would be associated with in socialism.

My point was that under contractualism, the individual considering the investment can also consider whether others will create added costs without adding to the investment, and proceed with this in mind.

State socialism, at its base ideology, is forcing the individual to accept the free-rider, not to do away with it.Because the base ideology was a reaction against capitalism, which requires the either/or proposition that either people accept the free-riders or the free-riders die.

This thread just made me lose 20 IQ points.

That it has not happened is no argument for "it can't happen".

It hasn't happened because every situation where something similar has occured, it bacame so abuse theat the "state" had to step in or society collapsed.

Considering that all power structures throughout time have been organized to combat anarchy, it seems very possible that the failure of anarchy to take any major hold is not systematic of anarchy, but a result of despots, prime ministers, emperors, congressmen, chiefs, priests and all of those who tolerate their abuses.

And why have all societies develoved away from anarchy? because it doesn't allow for a stable society.



First off, to say that everyone derives equal utility from government service is an absurdity. It requires that each contributes and derives value from government at an equal level to everyone else, and no one could argue that point.

And since I wasn't saying that, its a non-sequiter.

Now secondly, you appear to be arguing that government can offer services at a low cost, namely at one lower than private industry can. Now, while it is difficult to show that government operates at a lower cost (of course the USPS operates at generally a loss of $1 billion dollars a year even with 1.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies), there is a general law of economics that competition, namely the elimination of those who operate at higher costs, has a direct downward force on prices and costs.

And I'm not argueing that either. What I've been arguing is that the state gives better odds to providing agreed upon public services (that whole social contract thing) to a larger percentage of society through taxes than an uncontrolled free market economy where money and might make right.


Businesses who find ways to cut costs (new technology, less waste, more efficient production, lower acceptable rate of return) will inherently outlast those who cannot. In the market there is constant pressure towards the lowest cost production possible. Since government services do not act upon the market, they do not have this pressure, and therefore it would be a profound coincident if government behaved at lowest cost.

The market works that way w/ some Gov't oversight. W/o these oversights, Businesses have historically abused employees, formed monopolies , destroyed the environment, and endangered public health.



It is not how they will that is important, it is whether they will. The profit motive provides ample reason to assume that business will offer the most utility to the most consumers, as offering utility is the only way a business creates profit. Since government provision is not contingent on the utility it provides its consumers, it is simply able to tell the customers when or when they can't use a road.

Right, a monopoly on road use. How will they decide who gets to use it when? History shows that it's the ones who pay the premium prices that get first use.

Under socialism, no such thing occurs. I see no reason why someone who can work but doesn't would be associated with in socialism.

Because the base ideology was a reaction against capitalism, which requires the either/or proposition that either people accept the free-riders or the free-riders die.

Can I ask what will happen to the free rider when no one associates with him. Unable or unwilling to provide for himself he will most likely die. So socialism is a reaction to the brutaility of capitalism but proposes the same solution to these undesirable people?

Can I ask what will happen to the free rider when no one associates with him. Unable or unwilling to provide for himself he will most likely die. So socialism is a reaction to the brutaility of capitalism but proposes the same solution to these undesirable people?If someone is genuinely unable to provide for themselves in socialism, I imagine that socialism would have no problem for caring for such a person. If they are unwilling, I see no reason why they shouldn't have to fend for themselves on a subsistence farm.
Capitalism, on the other hand, due to unemployment, requires that people will be unable to provide for themselves. Without a welfare system, these people would die, as there's no reason to believe that private charity would be sufficient.

Without a welfare system, these people would die, as there's no reason to believe that private charity would be sufficient.

Other than that whole silly history thing, you mean, right? :rolleyes:

Other than that whole silly history thing, you mean, right? :rolleyes:Uh, history shows what I'm saying, not the opposite.

At least under contractualism the person can freely accept the added cost of the free rider, where under socialism he is forced to accept the added cost of the free rider at gun point.

Don't bring up the free-rider problem when you plan to enforce it.

Under anarchist-socialism, the choice of allowing a free rider is left to community. With market exchange, the free rider problem will occur regardless of contractual consent or not.

Too many posts to respond to so I'll just make a general post.

No. 1, in an anachro-capitalist society, it *is* entirely possible for the market to self-regulate itself, provided that there are enough strong businesses to ensure competition. However, should even one of those businesses fail, the balance of power will shift towards the remaining companies, and if there is only one company remaining, the result is an overwhelming monopoly- which can and has been abused. Yes, it is entirely possible that companies may "band together" to ensure the others survive, but they will only do that if it can mutually benefit them, and besides, an alliance of companies is just as effectively a monopoly as if one company dominated the market.

No. 2, there is no reason for the "private insurance companies" *not* to start a war with each other for supremacy. Without someone independently overseeing their operations and with unlimited access to weapons and other resources, there's nothing stopping an insurance company from waging a "turf war" against the other companies to ensure dominance. There is also no guarantee that an insurance company, in an anachro-capitalist state, would monopolize *all* the weapons. Since there are no limits regarding access to weapons, it is entirely possible that an individual or a group of individuals could stockpile enough weapons to be able to defeat an insurance company and effectively impose their own rule on society. Security would again be based upon access to capital and resources, as well as making alliances with the right people. The weak would struggle if not die off because they were unable to adequately defend themselves against the mob and/or the insurance companies (who are probably not above abusing their power themselves- it's been stated many times in this thread that there's nothing stopping a company from "arresting" people just so they can have some slaves).

It is in my belief that ultimately "a state", or something resembling a state, would emerge out of anarchy. Eventually, what will happen is that there will be a force- an insurance company, a mob, a natural disaster, etc.- so strong that the communities will *have* to band together to ensure their own survival. It is also entirely possible, due to the competitive nature of humans, a mob or an insurance company will eventually be powerful enough and ambitious enough to impose its will on the rest of society, leaving it helpless in defence. History shows this time and again- little states exist in harmony with each other until one of them is powerful enough and ambitious enough to engulf the others (the Ottoman Turks are one example of this), and/or they unite to meet a common threat (the Greek city-states vs. Persia, or even the early days of the Roman Empire). Yes, it's true that history shows the opposite as well- big states *do* fragment, mostly because of overextension- but, as with everything in history, periods of big states and little states can only last for so long. There is nothing to suggest than an anarchic state will exist in that form in perpetuity.