Bitcoin Forum

We've got a large population of Politics & Society board users very content with anarcho-capitalism, preaching it as the solution to violence. But, after pondering the issue, one can realize that among stateless societies, AnCap might as well be the upper bound for violence.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario as follows. Someone breaks into your house and you catch them stealing your items. What do you do, and what happens after?

In a society with a predominant state, you would call the central police, who would then employ violence to rob them of the items that they stole. This is obviously not optimal; as even when the items are extorted back, the robber is then threatened with further violence to get into a prison cell. All the while, tax collectors threaten violence on taxpayers to pay for the entire process.

AnCap is much, by many orders of magnitude, better than this. Initially, no violence is threatened on the robber; instead, a protection agency attempts to persuade the robber to return the items. But what if the robber refuses? Eventually, the protection agency is forced to use violence once again to reclaim the stolen items. The amount of violence threatened and employed is much lower here, but it is not a violent-free process.

It is difficult to find a society without a predominant state that employs more violence than AnCap, in fact. In true anarchism, where there is a lack of any states (including protection agencies), the robber would simply get away. In a direct democratic anarchist system, violence is only threatened after a vote, which depending on the situation may not pass.

AnCom is in theory even more violent than AnCap, but it isn't a true anarchist system because it is both involuntary and lacking of a central state. It's more like a libertarian socialist society. There are also many issues with it; so many, that it is a leftist's dream that will never work.

As a libertarian myself, I believe AnCap provides an effective way of reducing violence, possibly the most effective way known to mankind at the moment. The free market has demonstrated outstanding ability to regulate and nearly eliminate corruption, as well as boosting charity and total societal wealth. A transition of society to an anarcho-capitalist one is a huge leap forward for all of society, for mankind's future, and even for the planets we may live on. But I remain open to other low-state, multi-state, or anarchist alternatives that may be proposed in the future that enable even further cooperation. Anarcho-capitalism is not yet optimal.

Neither true anarchism (because it would be chaotic and devolve into either a state, AnCap, or AnCom system) nor direct democratic anarchist systems (as it doesn't scale) will work properly in today's society. The sole reason for this post is to affirm the existence of less violent systems, each having their own problems of course. Less violent systems that will still work remain to be invented today. But when they are, they will represent society's next step forward.

Don't forget the possibility of the use of economic incentives to get the robber to return the stolen goods. If the thief has been positively identified, then you can identify him to the rest of society, and inform them of the crime that was committed, and that he has not made restitution (given the stuff back). The rest of the society, then, could choose whether or not to deal with this person. I predict he would find many doors closed to him. If the choice is between starve or give back your stolen goods, then I know I would choose to return the goods, or their monetary equivalent, if I had sold them.

Consider the hatred here towards "tainted" coins. Not one major theft had the coins returned. Mt. Gox is the only large company that freezes tainted coins. Why would an AnCap society be different?

Well, consider that an AnCap society would be a considerably more contractual one than even the one we have going here. The "social contract" would be an actual thing, a "general submission to arbitration" with either an independent arbitration agency, or the one your insurance or defense agency uses. Refusal of arbitration would be a breach of that contract, and you would then probably lose all the contracts that depended on that; the insurance agency, the defense agency, etc. Even at McDonalds, if the owner has seen your face on the nightly news, you may be turned away, because he knows that if you and he have a dispute, you will not arbitrate, and he will be left with no recourse.

I would not purchase a contract that requires me to pay others to arbitrate against thieves. That is excessively expensive insurance, and all it will do is make thieves steal from others. A thief will still steal. This is the way society works today: prison's existence hasn't lowered robbery rates, and the threat of shunning probably isn't either.

You don't want your stuff back?

Most likely, it won't be stolen in the first place. There are few thieves compared to non-thieves.

True enough, especially in a society where the victims are not disarmed by state decree. But thievery is not the only reason one might need to resort to arbitration. Any dispute, from your neighbor's dog crapping on your lawn, to a "class-action" type case with a large company that dumped waste into the river, would be handled by the same system of arbitration, could you not handle it peaceably between yourselves. You're also looking at it from the wrong direction. It's not forcing you to arbitrate against thieves, it's forcing them to arbitrate with you.

+1. Robber would be hunted down and shot, most likely.

There also would be less crime in an AnCap society.  No/less taxes & competition would make unemployment low & products/services cheaper.  Crime will never be nonexistent, but an AnCap society would remove a lot of the incentives to commit crimes.  The remainder would probably be handled w/ self-defense and community courts/jails.

I notice a lot of people are using the word 'would', as in:

- It would be like this...
- It would be the case that...

What I'm not seeing are statements like this:

- In such and such AnCap society, a study revealed that x percentage of scenarios panned out like...
- Studies demonstrated that...

That tells me two things:

- Everyone is just assuming and hypothesizing.
- AnCap never got off the ground successfully to any meaningful extent.

Is this better?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History
"Even where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially "public" offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case and collect the resulting fine, thus fitting it into an essentially private system."

I think you are looking at this the wrong way.

Your goal is less violence as an end in itself.  When violence is a means towards any given end.  Maximum total material wealth turns out to be produced by using violence only in defense of private property.

Violence is simply a feature of our physical existence and isn't going anywhere.

Violence is suboptimal. Competition can occur without violence and contributes more to further development of the human race.

In fact, many species display no violence towards others of that species. These include many plants, aquatic life, and even our closest primate relatives.

Really? Our closest primate relatives are pacifists and don't fight for sexual dominance? Cites please...

The best part is that you two are saying almost exactly the same thing:



(emphasis mine)

^[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Promiscuity)

How would you know? You could only answer that until you see how many desperate people AnCap creates combined with how effective the incentive is to not steal. Suppositions on top of theories on top of beliefs on top of suppositions...

I think we can be certain that the ratio of thieves to non-thieves in AnCap would likely not be exactly as it would be in a non AnCap, but which way that ratio goes is just a guess.

Hardly. These (http://www.mackinac.org/17372) people would not be homeless in an Ancap society, and thus, not desperate. The son would be an honest businessman. Fewer desperate people, fewer thieves.

I don't disagree that violence is suboptimal... which is why the optimal use of violence is violence against violence.  But of course violence is poorly defined, private property for instance - is stealing violence?

You could punish stealing only by stealing back more (without real violence).  Debtors prisons are gone for example.  Fraud could be punished by black listing like bad credit is.

But if you have someone that is going to slaughter and eat everyone (which can go on indefinitely, suboptimal or not)... what else are you going to do but violence back.

Why do you believe knowing one variable in a multi variable equation give you confidence to predict a total sum?

I can't predict a total sum, but I can sure as hell point out a trend.

Your equation, "how many desperate people AnCap creates combined with how effective the incentive is to not steal." can be expressed as "Crime = X / Y", where X is the number of desperate people, and Y is the effectiveness of the disincentive to steal.

Clearly, Y in today's society is not 100%, or there would be no robbery. Even assuming that it is similar (which I am not convinced it would be, I feel relatively confident it would be much higher than now) in an AnCap society, it's clear that reducing X would lower the crime rate. Even assuming no disincentive to steal, reducing X enough still results in a net downward trend.

X is a sum, and you are predicting one component of that sum by referencing an article. Sure, reducing X (assuming Y is constant or higher) results in less crime, but you still have no idea what X is.

How hard is it to predict that allowing people to start their own businesses would reduce the level of desperate people in the world? How hard is it to predict that allowing people to choose their own wages would reduce the level of desperate people in the world? How hard is it to predict that allowing people to freely contract for whatever services or goods they choose to provide or purchase would reduce the level of desperate people in the world?

How hard is to imagine that those three imaginings only imagine a subset of the variables that influence the total number of desperate people in a society? Once again, I think it's incumbent upon you to be more objective and think (without being influenced by your ideology) about a lot of other factors that go into creating desperate situations for people.

Name three not directly related to government intervention.

Are you not able to yourself?

What, are you 12? Are you really going to try and devolve this into an "I asked you first" argument? If you do not provide those three examples, I will assume you cannot, and therefore, concede the point that removal of the State will better society by reducing, vastly, the number of desperate people therein.

I provided about eight or ten, and then went to post in the other thread, then returned here to finish my post, hit the "post" button, and the forum software said I needed to wait more than 20 seconds before making another post, and my post was lost.

But again, I'm surprised you can't think of any yourself. They're glaringly obvious. I wouldn't want to look so mind bogglingly stupid if I were you and engaged in this debate and be thinking that the three examples provided covers it all. Are you really unable to come up with more examples?

Let me ask that again: are you really not able to come with more ways someone might become desperate? Really? Just answer yes or no. Yes means you can't think of anymore (not something to be proud of). No means you're selectively not saying things in hopes nobody will notice (not something to be proud of).

I would sell food to a known thief. I'm not going to let someone starve for stealing, personally. I would sell a car, or most anything else for that matter, to a known thief. If I don't, someone else will.

So, you concede, then. Thanks.

Answer my yes or no question.

Would you enter into a contract with him, knowing that if he breaks the contract, you'll have no peaceful recourse against him? (he's already refused arbitration once, there's no reason why he wouldn't again)

Why should I? You conceded my point.

No. I will tell you if I concede your point or provide the list I made earlier if you answer that yes or no question.

^^^That's you conceding, right there.^^^

Answer the yes or no question and then I'll provide that list. If I don't provide that list, you can toot your horn to all your lib buddies. Otherwise, stop looking so impotent.

You are trying to devolve this into an "I asked you first" argument. You're so cute. :-*

Some other time. You're boring.

Absolutely adorable. :)

Methinks the baby-tyrant doth protested too much, and was bitten in the arse for it.

So, just so we're clear then, and as a summary of my accusations here that you have extreme difficulty thinking outside the boundaries of your ideology, can we safely assume, as you have been insisting, that the above three items are the only factors which will determine the desperation of people within a society?

Here's what he said:


So, to be more precise, he's implying that there are no other factors which could influence the desperation of people unless caused by government. I contend there are, and it would take someone heavily blinded by their ideology to not be able to imagine them.

Holliday, are you also really unable to think of any factors which would influence the desperation of people not caused by government?

You've completely missed the context of the discussion. Myrkul claims that in AnCap, he can predict most assuredly that people will be less desperate, because he claims he understands all the variables that go into the equation that determines how desperate people will be.

Now, let's examine some of the cases in which you describe how people could become desperate above. Can you be certain that such calamities would not happen in AnCap, or would definitely happen to a lesser degree?

Imagine all of the following:

- Famine
- Genetic engineering of crops gone awry
- Reduction in building codes
- Increased speed of biovectors due to increased population
- Reduction of ecosystem services
- Corporate warfare
- Inability to handle medical expenses
- Increased deleterious effects of synergies between artificial compounds
- Unsustainable harvesting

Are these not all things which could in theory cause desperation among people? Can we definitively say that AnCap always reduces these effects as opposed to possibly exacerbating them. Who would be so foolish as to make assumptions about AnCap when it is so untested on a large scale?

The conversation goes back to determining the value of X, where X is the number of desperate people in a society. Myrkul listed three factors which he claimed would determine the value of X. He challenged me to come up with three factors which could happen without government intervention. I laughed at him, because I couldn't believe that he was allowing his blinded way of thinking not allowing him to come up with those three factors himself.

Look at the list I made above. Is it possible that any of those could occur without government intervention in an AnCap world?

Still can't come up with them, then? Are you really so lazy as to want me to defend your position?

First off, I see you use the word "choose".   I don't want to hear "choose" when it comes to applying the law to a criminal.      If society doesn't "choose" to help me then I am forced to round up my friends and apply violence against him and any co-conspirators to get my stuff back.  We have then be reverted back to Right of Might.   There are piece of this AnCap that could be used in modern representative societies but overall this ideology is bankrupt for the most part because there the only enforcing body is the whole collective on a volunteer basis.   We see this types of things happen in urban ghettos where people get killed or robbed, everyone knows who did it but because they know there will be a price to pay, they say nothing to the police.  Would we really want this on a wide scale?


Dalkore

VIOLENCE.    Your argument is really turning for the worst.   This really shows the character of what you are advocating.

Note that this is not the system I advocate. read the top of the quote pyramid "lack of... protection agencies". This is pure, unadulterated, everyone for themselves anarchy. Under such a "system" (lack thereof, really), yes, a robber would most likely simply be hunted down and killed by those he robbed.

They say nothing to the police because the police are just as likely to beat or murder them as are the criminals who did the deed. At least they know the criminals.

If you'd like to live in a community where criminals are required to be ostracized, select a protection agency that has that as a provision in their contract, and prefer businesses that utilize that agencies or others that do as well.

+1 something is a form of avocation.  It shows a symbol of support.   Governments are hear to stay because the vast majority of people want some 3rd party authority to enforce rights on their behalf.  The vast majority does not want to have to use force to assert them directly through violence and hoping someone comes to arbitration.   Yes governments are sources of all kinds of bad and evil so that tells me that we need reform, enforcement of laws equally across all classes and oversight from people that do not make it their career to do so.

Bankrupt, I'll say it again.

Do I really need to say anything except quote your flimsy claim?   Yes there are cases of abuse but you will find that in any place where power concentrates.  With less structured and mandatory oversight, you are just inviting more abuse.

You're new here, aren't you? +1 is agreeing with the previous post. Please read the article I have linked twice now, and will now link a 3rd time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law_and_order_and_the_use_of_violence

There are 3rd party authorities to enforce rights, they are known as Protection Agencies or Rights Enforcement Agencies.


You keep knocking down strawmen. I'm very close to calling troll here, unless you start addressing my actual arguments.

but in a libertarian society, how do we keep track of people's names?

best case scenario we have an established ID system that 99% of people trust and he can't counterfeit an ID and he doesnt' have id, people will see him as a suspicious person because he doesn't have that ID

Yeah, something like that. If there is a market need for non-forgable ID cards, then they'll be provided. Probably by a federated group of agencies.

How convenient for you to selectively quote me. I guess if you can't win the argument, then just selectively leave out the part I wrote that counters your position.

Oh, that list of things were supposed to create desperation in people? I just thought it was your usual random list of unrelated concepts.

Looking over them, I suppose some of them could, indeed. Of course, government makes most of them worse, and indeed causes a good many. Still, you did manage, I think, to put out a list of three possible causes of desperation not directly caused by government intervention. Of course, does that prove your point? No, it does not. I contend that removal of the State will reduce desperation. I don't claim to know by exactly how much. You are saying "You can't know by how much!", and then claiming that that refutes my claim.

Your claim was that you knew all the variables which determine what causes desperation in people. Now, in your above post, it appears that you concede that maybe that isn't the case, even while trying to insist otherwise.

Pathetic and contradictory all at the same time.

It sure starting to sound like a central government with all kinds of enumerated powers.   Federated groups, Rights enforcers, etc...   You wish I would troll you, I am just waiting for some real debate food.   Why should I take time actually flexing intellectual muscle if your responses are weak with lots of solutions that really sound like what I believe is necessary no matter how it operates or what we decide to call it?    You may even call me an anti-disestablishmentarianist.  

Have you read that article I linked yet?

I will answer this:   Its a lack of opportunity and a sense of fairness in the legal system is what creates desperation.   People need hope and to know the rules are applied equally and fair.  When that does not exist people lose faith in the system and then they are capable of many acts that you work to avoid in society.  

Quote the post where I said that.

I browsed it but for you, I am going to read it right now and I will tell you what I think.  I will really read it right now.

Posts 26 through in 30 in aggregate contain enough to make it clear what you were claiming.

Quote the post where I said that.

Posts 26 through in 30 in aggregate.

In other words, you cannot, you only (falsely) assumed you knew what I was saying.

Derp.

Ok, now that I have read the meat.    Bottom-line is that the legal remedies have no teeth unless you have a central authority and unless it is paid by everyone equally, then it would be a goon squad like Blackwater or some other private enforcement agency.  Yes, we all give us some of our individual rights so a 3rd party can enforce the most important ones.  Without it you have goons or mafia.  If that is what you want to live under, more power to you but to even suggest this is viable or even a good solution is a joke.

You're perfectly welcome to tell yourself what you wish. It matters not to me. Posts 26 through 30 speak well enough for me.

Allowing competition in the industries of protection and justice is a joke? Why do those industries require monopoly?

You're perfectly welcome to tell yourself what you wish. It matters not to me. I never said what you think I said.

They need to be uniform.  If they are not then you are not applying justice equally across your society.   Certain public services should not be effected by market forces, these are some of them.

Why is applying justice equally preferable to applying justice fairly? Allowing market competition in the justice industry will allow those affected to select the best service. Poor justice will not receive business.

What public services should not be affected by market forces?

So the monopolist can wave the "qualified immunity" carte blanche and get away with practically every injustice, and fail to prosecute itself to anywhere near the appropriate extent!

Or just straight-up Sovereign immunity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity).

/nods

I have just read the article, originally published as "De la production de la sécurité," in the Journal des Economistes in February 1849, The Production of Security (https://mises.org/document/2716/), by Gustave de Molinari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_de_Molinari). It directly touches upon the discussion here, and even presented an opinion of Communism and Monarchy being the two sides of the same coin that I had not seen before. Quite interesting.

It is widely considered the first appearance of the system which would later become known as Anarcho-Capitalism, or Market Anarchy, by proposing that, like other industries, security (that is, government) would be best served by being delivered on the open market, rather than by a monopoly or by communism.

It's quite short, and took up less than an hour of my time, all told. Well worth it.