anarchocapitlist stability

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
"Remember, we're talking about a population that believes in freedom and order."

That's a huge assumption. You have a lot more faith in the human race then me. I'm convinced my nieghbor would kill me for shiny pebbles if he thought he'd get away with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he think he could get away with it?

[ QUOTE ]
"Warlords are organized criminals. In a state-dominated system, organized criminals generate cashflow (power) by filling needs that the government stops the market from filling (e.g. drugs, prostitution, gambling). In a stateless system, these can be provided by the market. There's no need for organized crime to provide them. "

Who needs drugs, prostituion, or gambling. With no police, why not simply rob people outright?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said there would be no police?

[ QUOTE ]
"Once the self-appointed warlord has alienated his customers, how will he maintain his power?"

What customers? You don't need customers when you have victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think people are going to let themselves be victimized without organizing resistance?

Do you think people who respect freedom and order will tolerate a bully? They'll just throw their hands up and say "oh my, since there's no government to protect me, I'll just have to hope there are no mean people in the world"? I don't. There are mean people. They should be dealt with.

[lehighguy]

Why do they care?

[mrgold]

A warlord could make his initial wealth in an entirely legitimate way. And over a long period of time it is very likely that a particular capitalist would be so sucessful that he would indeed have a "bigger foot than everyone else". However, even this isn't nessecary, all that is required is that he is powerful enough that it can be in other powerful entities interests not to oppose him if he were to attempt to entrench himself by assuming the powers of the state. Furthermore, each individual smaller capitalist could not possible oppose such a revolution without knowing that the rest of society would do so too, if the revolutionizing capitalist/despot can create the impression of inevitability, than resistance is doomed.

IMO the key to making members of a society follow the rules is not a "respect for rules/order" but rather a wide dispersion of power amongst individuals with different intersts. As soon as one individual becomes powerful enough to ignore the law, the law is meaningless. A multipolar representative government like the one found in western democracies effectively accomplishes this. In an anarchocapitalist state, I see no long run guarentee and don't even find it likely that power would not become too concentrated to maintain the rule of law.

[lehighguy]

"Why would he think he could get away with it?"

He has a bigger gun.

"Who said there would be no police?"

You did. If you going to say private security forces then they won't have mandates to protect anyone who can't pay for their services.

"Why do you think people are going to let themselves be victimized without organizing resistance?"

Like rebellious serfs in the middle ages organized a resistence, then got killed.

"Do you think people who respect freedom and order will tolerate a bully?"

Let's give you a lot of slack. I'll assume that there are enoguh generous people out there willing to pay for the security of the poor simply because they think it's the right thing to do.

How would these people organize. They will need to pool thier resources. To make sure thier army is the biggest one, and thus able to protect everyone, we'll assume there are many many people involved. They will need rules to govern when the force can be used, and rules governing how the rules are made. They will also have to make rules are applied universally and fairly to all members to ensure the members themselves don't violate the agreements. Without these controls in place they will be unable to organize thier power effectively in order to curb the aggressions of individual members or groups.

So what do we have here. A government.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's give you a lot of slack. I'll assume that there are enoguh generous people out there willing to pay for the security of the poor simply because they think it's the right thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a much more serious problem than the one you elaborate on. In fact, I think I'll start a thread...

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
"Who said there would be no police?"

You did. If you going to say private security forces then they won't have mandates to protect anyone who can't pay for their services.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private security *IS* "police".

I'll address your concerns about poor people in another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
"Why do you think people are going to let themselves be victimized without organizing resistance?"

Like rebellious serfs in the middle ages organized a resistence, then got killed.

"Do you think people who respect freedom and order will tolerate a bully?"

Let's give you a lot of slack. I'll assume that there are enoguh generous people out there willing to pay for the security of the poor simply because they think it's the right thing to do.

How would these people organize. They will need to pool thier resources. To make sure thier army is the biggest one, and thus able to protect everyone, we'll assume there are many many people involved. They will need rules to govern when the force can be used, and rules governing how the rules are made. They will also have to make rules are applied universally and fairly to all members to ensure the members themselves don't violate the agreements. Without these controls in place they will be unable to organize thier power effectively in order to curb the aggressions of individual members or groups.

So what do we have here. A government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a bunch of people buying protection services. The people from whom they buy the service can determine how to make their own rules (these processes would be considered in the purchasing decision). People would purchase whatever level of security that they felt they needed. Some would purchase nothing. Regardless, we can be confident that the results will be more efficient (and more moral) than state-run service.

Now let's talk about the uber-warlord-boogeyman. You seem to reject the notion that anyone will be able to oppose him.

Let's start with the extreme case, and allow that this single man has amassed enough power to conquer the entire world. So what? A-C can't 100% prevent conquest. But neither can any other form of government. The soviets could have wiped out the US had they wanted to.

Continuing in this case, which is easier for the boogeyman to conquer and to maintain power over after the conquest? A centralized state, or a dispersed population with no controlling authorities? Think about worldwide guerilla warfare. Is this really going to be a profitable endeavor for the boogeyman?