educate a liberal

[coffeecrazy1]

Hang on a second.

PVN has made no claims that his opinions represent those of libertarians.

In fact, he has implicated that he is an anarcho-capitalist.

I resent the implication that libertarians are anarchists...we are nothing of the sort and certainly see the need for specific government functions and places in society. I'm not entirely sure what Locke's State of War is(though I'm sure someone will flame and tell me), but the context suggests that libertarians favor a warlord state...and I'm fairly confident we do not.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I resent the implication that libertarians are anarchists...we are nothing of the sort and certainly see the need for specific government functions and places in society. I'm not entirely sure what Locke's State of War is(though I'm sure someone will flame and tell me), but the context suggests that libertarians favor a warlord state...and I'm fairly confident we do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should hope people wouldn't flame you for asking an honest question.

To answer, though, I'm going to grossly oversimplify.

Locke is merely presenting a hypothetical history for how states derive their legitimate authority.

More or less, Locke claims we initially existed in a State of Nature - in the State of Nature, human beings are equal and therefore nothing can put an individual under the authority of another, unless one consents to such authority. In the State of Nature, there's still conflict - but that conflict is resolved reciprocally and equitably.

However, once people learned to use their labor to produce more resources than they could use themselves - a need developed to create a medium in the excess product of labor could be horded without the fear of spoilage - the medium created, was of course, currency. Currency has no intrinsic value - you can't eat it, or fill your gas tank with it, etc. But once currency is tacitly accepted by all, the limits on acquisition disappear.

Once the limits on acquisition disappear, the ability to collect more resources than one needs becomes possible. And as the ability to collect becomes possible, so do heightened conflicts over resources.

Now we've arrived at the State of War - the State of War is characterized by covetousness, conflict, and ethical uncertainty. This tendency of conflict to perpetuate in the State of War explains why men are forced to leave it (and with it, leave behind the State of Nature). It is not inevitable that the State of Nature come to an end; nor is the State of War necessarily a violent place most of the time. But once a serious conflict over justice does break out, it is very hard to resolve justly. What separates conflicts in the State of Nature from conflicts in the State of War is that the conflicts which arise in the State of War are almost impossibly to solve legitimately. People choose to leave the State of War so that they can pool their resources together to uphold one another's rights.

How, then, do those leaving the State of War uphold one another’s rights? They must find a common judge, in order to settle their conflicts. That common judge? The state.

I've oversimplified to be sure, though.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another false dichotomy. You presume that the non-existence of the state would prevent the existence of a property defense market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the 'property defense market' not just a cute way of saying that warlord anarchy would be replaced with warlord order?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cute answer: Isn't that what we have now?

Serious answer: no. Gangs exist now mainly because of government, not in spite of it. They get their funding through things the market desires even though the government has banned them.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This "warlord problem" is often put forward as an argument against anarcho-capitalism. It's unfounded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to propose a workable alternative?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been proposed. The short answer is private insurance.


The important thing to note here is that not every society will function properly in a pure private property model. There has to be some basic respect for the idea of order. This is why Somalia, which is often used as an example of the "inevitable failure" of anarchro-capitalism, is not a valid example - the society there did not respect the concept of order even when there was a government (which is partially why that government failed in the first place). Why would anyone then be surprised at the outcome when the government ceased to exist there?

In the US, there is overwhelming respect for the concept of order. If the government suddenly disappeared overnight in, say, new york city, do you really think gangs would grow in power? What would be the basis of their power? They would have precisely ZERO support, in that they would not be offering anything that someone less violent could not provide. They would be PURELY criminal enterprises. Do you think established interests will just sit idly by while these thugs loot the entire city?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Pvn I dig some of your responses, but then you go and spoil it all by saying:

[ QUOTE ]
How about "no one has yet observed a polititian who is not an oppressor"? Government is essentially the negation of liberty. Those who are agents of government are complicit. In this case, it's more correct to say that "government" itself is corrupt, the polititians are technically not corrupt since they are behaving as they should in such a system - i.e. as oppressors.


[/ QUOTE ]

Foaming+mouth+extremist = PVN.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foaming? That's not a counter to my assertion. Government, by definition, is someone telling someone else what to do. How is that not a negation of liberty?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
How, then, do those leaving the State of War uphold one another’s rights? They must find a common judge, in order to settle their conflicts. That common judge? The state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you've unfairly oversimplified the idea. I do dispute the assertion that a state is the only possibly "common judge" to adjucate such disputes.

I also dispute that states have "legitimate authority." First of all, this assumes that a central government is less oppressive than a warlord condition, which I don't think is a given. That's just a minor quibble, though. More importantly, there has never been a totally voluntary formation of such a state. The US is probably the closest to this ideal, but even here there were Loyalists to the crown, and those that may have preferred the articles of confederation over our current constitution, etc. In any case, there's certainly nobody alive today that signed the constitution or the declaration of independence. I certianly didn't.

As long as people have respect for the concept of order, and agree that violence is not a preferred method for dispute settlement, the market can provide peace, even among competing private police agencies (which you could pejoratively call warlords, I suppose).

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Gangs exist now mainly because of government, not in spite of it. They get their funding through things the market desires even though the government has banned them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gangs aren't the only things to fear in a stateless society.

[ QUOTE ]
The short answer is private insurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about when Company X takes over Private Insurance Company Y's offices with their protection force? What about when Private Insurance Company Z packs up and leaves town? What about when Private Insurance Company Q takes all their assets to the Bellagio. puts it all on black, and losses? Anarcho-capitalism recourse is do what?

[ QUOTE ]
If the government suddenly disappeared overnight in, say, new york city, do you really think gangs would grow in power? What would be the basis of their power? They would have precisely ZERO support, in that they would not be offering anything that someone less violent could not provide. They would be PURELY criminal enterprises. Do you think established interests will just sit idly by while these thugs loot the entire city?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not worried about just gangs and thugs. What about when Company X's protection force has a conflict with Private Citizen Y's protection force? What about when Private Citizen Y (who has a large protection force) decides to take over his neighbors home (who has a small protection force)? No big deal in anarcho-capitalism utopia?

I'm sure we can all envision numerous possible scenarios where anaracho-capitalism just sounds a hell of a lot like good old anarchy.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
also dispute that states have "legitimate authority." First of all, this assumes that a central government is less oppressive than a warlord condition, which I don't think is a given. That's just a minor quibble, though. More importantly, there has never been a totally voluntary formation of such a state. The US is probably the closest to this ideal, but even here there were Loyalists to the crown, and those that may have preferred the articles of confederation over our current constitution, etc. In any case, there's certainly nobody alive today that signed the constitution or the declaration of independence. I certianly didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you're an American.

If you are, you've had ample opportunity to pack up and live elsewhere should you feel oppressed - yet since you've stuck around, driven on the roads, let firemen put out your fires, let the military protect whatever business interests you have, etc. you've given your tacit consent. The state doesn't need your explicit consent to be legitimate. If you don't like it, the state (at least the US) isn't holding you back from finding greener pastures.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Government, by definition, is someone telling someone else what to do. How is that not a negation of liberty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Government is also protecting you from those who would do you harm and take your stuff otherwise. Therefore they're providing freedom you couldn't have had otherwise. This isn't to say government is always providing liberty, or that governments are never oppressive.

But, at the very least, a good government is providing its citizens more liberty than they would otherwise have had if said government not existed.

[Darryl_P]

PVN,

I must say your original thinking is refreshing. Have you read the book "The Sovereign Individual" by J.D.Davidson? I think it would be right up your alley.

I've had long-winded discussions with a poster named "Phaedrus" on the Rx sports betting forum and he also champions the anarcho-capitalism concept. Very intelligent and well-read dude, but imo makes the same mistake you do in your assumptions:

[ QUOTE ]
As long as people have respect for the concept of order, and agree that violence is not a preferred method for dispute settlement , the market can provide peace, even among competing private police agencies (which you could pejoratively call warlords, I suppose).

[/ QUOTE ]

The part in bold is imo the propaganda dupe job of the century. Politicians and the media have done an amazing job drilling that one into people's subconscious but a thinking man imo has to recognize that it simply isn't true. The reality of humanity on planet Earth is that violence (or credible threat thereof) has always been the ONLY way the most important disputes have ever been settled. Even lesser disputes are resolved with violence as the ultimate final resort but there are so many levels between the point at which one party voluntarily gives in and the actual use of violence (not necessarily by one of the parties directly, but via calling the police, say) that this fact is often overlooked even by very intelligent observers.

In case you have already thought this all through, I ask you this...

In an anarcho-capitalist world, how do you envision child custody situations getting resolved between a divorcing couple who are adamant in their beliefs that the child is best off with them and that all problems in the relationship are the other person's fault? Just curious because my imagination falls short here.

[FishHooks]

Pork is definately on both sides, I'm more dissapointed in the Republicans though because I expect pork from democrats. I will never ever ever ever become a lib, the more I learn aboutu economics the more crazy the left becomes.