The transition to AnCap

[myrkul]

Because Rarity apparently can't take criticism, the thread was locked before I could post this. Ah well, it was off-topic anyway.

Government is the only solution to cause of systemic homelessness.

Fixed.

I think it is important to acknowledge that even if this is the case, immediate transition into a ancap or libertarian structured society may not be a wise decision when starting from as crappy a situation as has been created by our forefathers. The current situation is similar to the 1930s, when Hoover thought that people would help each other out and things like that but didn't understand the extent to which people had been made dependent on easy credit and centralized services to solve their problems.

No, of course, such a rapid change would cause serious social disruption. We may not have much choice, but given the option, I would rather a gradual shift away from government solutions, preferably one industry at a time, to allow society to adjust. The best way would be to simply remove the laws granting those industries government monopolies. Failing that, of course, there's always black market opportunities, but that opens a whole can of worms. Not least of which is making dispute resolution available to the entrepreneurs and customers, since black market means necessarily remove the government courts from the equation.

[bb113]

I agree, any small/no government approach would most likely completely fail if implemented in the US right now. These approaches actually benefit from the relative stability we currently enjoy. In some thread somewhere Mathew N Wright made an interesting analogy between different social philosophies and the process of growing up and aging. For an ancap society to really flourish it may be necessary that it is spawned from some more restrictive state, similar to moving out of your parents house.

So really, should we want a libertarian government right now when almost everything is off the charts? I think probably not. The problems are pretty much beyond fixable, it is better to just build things in the background and encourage attitudes to lessen the blow when this non-robust system fails.

[bb113]

Another way of putting the same concept i am trying to articulate is that states are unethical entities, but ethics are a luxury.

[myrkul]

I agree, any small/no government approach would most likely completely fail if implemented in the US right now. These approaches actually benefit from the relative stability we currently enjoy. In some thread somewhere Mathew N Wright made an interesting analogy between different social philosophies and the process of growing up and aging. For an ancap society to really flourish it may be necessary that it is spawned from some more restrictive state, similar to moving out of your parents house.

So really, should we want a libertarian government right now when almost everything is off the charts? I think probably not. The problems are pretty much beyond fixable, it is better to just build things in the background and encourage attitudes to lessen the blow when this non-robust system fails.

Oh, small government, even no government, could work just fine, here and now, if all the competition were available. With a few notable exceptions, those alternatives to the government systems don't exist, and aren't well known if they do exist. That's why I suggest doing it industry by industry, to let those competitors develop. Of course, developing those competitors in the black market, especially the justice industry, Is a fine alternative, and allows for a "proof of concept" before implementing it in the white market.

[nevafuse]

That's why I suggest doing it industry by industry, to let those competitors develop.

This all implies cooperation from the government which I just don't see happening.  There isn't going to be any planning involved.  The government will resist this tooth & nail until the whole thing collapses.  Obviously, that isn't ideal, but we aren't going to have a choice.  Why would the government support something threatening its existence?  We are talking about the death of a huge industry.  The US military is the largest employer in the world according to BBC.  Not to mention the non-military & state employees and whole other industries built off government contracts/grants.  They will not go down without fighting.  I really hope people won't resort to violence, but one side is better trained & armed.  Maybe bitcoin will start to make the US dollar so worthless that the government will be looted of supplies & resources long before an act of war is declared.

[myrkul]

That's why I suggest doing it industry by industry, to let those competitors develop.

This all implies cooperation from the government which I just don't see happening.  There isn't going to be any planning involved.  The government will resist this tooth & nail until the whole thing collapses.  Obviously, that isn't ideal, but we aren't going to have a choice.  Why would the government support something threatening its existence?

Which is why I (and other agorists) believe that black market solutions are the only ones that will work. If the government would cooperate in it's dismantling, that would be great, but we know that's not going to happen.

[nevafuse]

Which is why I (and other agorists) believe that black market solutions are the only ones that will work.

Black market solutions are the only way bitcoin can succeed.  There's just not enough incentive for law abiding citizens to switch to bitcoin right now.  Too volatile, untested, and complicated.  If it wasn't for silkroad, satoshidice, etc, bitcoin would still be worthless.  Once those services grow, stabilize the market, and seed more consumer friendly applications, then it will start eating away at white/gray markets.  And as gradual & long term as that sounds, I hope it takes over as peaceful as the internet has.  But like in a few countries where the internet has spawned violent revolutions, I fear the same for 1st world countries this time around.  Freedom of press/speech already existed in 1st world countries so the internet didn't do much but crush mostly non-government businesses.  But bitcoin will crush government businesses & they usually don't go down w/o a fight.

[ElMoIsEviL]

Transitioning a Society towards Anarcho-Capitalism is wrong.

Society ought to be transitioned towards Freed Markets. From within the scope of Freed Markets people may choose how they wish to organize themselves (this is where Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Syndicalism, Primitivism, Mutualism, Left Libertarianism, Right Libertarianism etc come in).

Why? Because many people will reject Anarcho-Capitalism and as such it will have to be enforced, through a State, the same problem Lenin and the Bolsheviks ran into. And once you start doing that... you make enemies and you need to protect a central hub (State) so it hires security (Soldiers/Law Enforcement) and then you're right back where you started.

[myrkul]

Transitioning a Society towards Anarcho-Capitalism is wrong.

Society ought to be transitioned towards Freed Markets. From within the scope of Freed Markets people may choose how they wish to organize themselves (this is where Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Syndicalism, Primitivism, Mutualism, Left Libertarianism, Right Libertarianism etc come in).

Why? Because many people will reject Anarcho-Capitalism and as such it will have to be enforced, through a State, the same problem Lenin and the Bolsheviks ran into. And once you start doing that... you make enemies and you need to protect a central hub (State) so it hires security (Soldiers/Law Enforcement) and then you're right back where you started.

You make a good point, that it's actually free markets we want, not a specific method of organizing those markets. But in my opinion, AnCap is the best way to ensure those free markets, because the services which define it are provided on those markets, and it is permissive of other systems within it's framework. "Enforcing AnCap" would amount to enforcing a free market, Which AnCap does quite well on it's own, without a State. Remember that market systems are not mandatory, nobody forces you to sign up with a defense agency, or any other AnCap construct. You're more than welcome to join a commune or arrange yourselves in any voluntary way you choose.

[nevafuse]

Why? Because many people will reject Anarcho-Capitalism and as such it will have to be enforced, through a State, the same problem Lenin and the Bolsheviks ran into. And once you start doing that... you make enemies and you need to protect a central hub (State) so it hires security (Soldiers/Law Enforcement) and then you're right back where you started.

Possibly.  It really all depends where the equilibrium for a state is.  And right now (pre-bitcoin) the equilibrium appears to be a socialistic state.  But once bitcoin becomes popular enough, that equilibrium could rapidly change.  Just like freedom of press & speech via the internet is changing Syria, Egypt, Russia, etc.  At the very least, bitcoin places huge restraints on government's control of currency.  Worse case, people just stop paying their taxes.  Will bitcoin dissolve governments to AnCap or smaller local governments?  We'll just have to wait & see.

[justusranvier]

If the government would cooperate in it's dismantling, that would be great, but we know that's not going to happen.

That's more or less what happened in the former USSR. When the government realized that the system was going to fail they looted what was left and then voted to disband.

[benjamindees]

The government will resist this tooth & nail until the whole thing collapses.

Never forget this.

[Coreadrin_47]

Transitioning a Society towards Anarcho-Capitalism is wrong.

Society ought to be transitioned towards Freed Markets. From within the scope of Freed Markets people may choose how they wish to organize themselves (this is where Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Syndicalism, Primitivism, Mutualism, Left Libertarianism, Right Libertarianism etc come in).

Why? Because many people will reject Anarcho-Capitalism and as such it will have to be enforced, through a State, the same problem Lenin and the Bolsheviks ran into. And once you start doing that... you make enemies and you need to protect a central hub (State) so it hires security (Soldiers/Law Enforcement) and then you're right back where you started.

Anarcho-Capitalism allows for most of the sub-categories to exist within itself, but they have to be on a voluntary level (i.e. you don't get to have your magic uniform going around and skewering people who don't do what you want them to do when you have no moral grounds for making them do it, other than some post-modernist drivel bullshit or some attempt at imposing an outside "morality").

In an an-cap society, it is perfectly acceptable for a bunch of people to try to get together and create a syndicalist neighborhood.  If they are all willing participants in the soon-to-fail experiment (sorry, you just can't rewrite human nature.), that's fine and well.  They get to bear the consequences, good or bad, or whatever way of organizing themselves they have decided upon.  Or let's say you have a sub-division or neighborhood that everyone who buys a house there must sign a behavioral contract, restricting them from doing gaudy things with their lawns or houses, and have to pitch in to pay for 24/7 security and lawcare services.  If I walked into that as a voluntary, non-coerced participant and I decide that it is worth it for me to sign a contracting guaranteeing X amount of my resources per month, then that's cool.

Anarcho-capitalism is about morality and ethics!  Free markets are only a cog in that essential machine - they are an extension of the recognition of inalienable human rights, simultaneously possessed by all human beings by nature of the fact that they are human being.  All of the details are not and can not be up to one group to decide "on behalf" of another, or what not.   The "morality" of those other societal structures and Utopic dreams is not moral if it is blanket applied to all human beings.  It always requires some to be slaves to others at gunpoint, without exception.  Anarcho-capitalism is the highest form of morality because all of its moral axioms can and must be applied equally to all human beings simultaneously.  Within that, you will likely have people doing a lot of really, really stupid shit, like believing that you can re-write human nature, etc.  But you have the right to think that stuff and hang out with and do business with other like-minded people.  An-cap just makes sure I have the right to give the crazies a really wide berth and do business with, be friends with, and associate with people who exist in the rational world...

[fornit]

stupid question: how exactly does anything ever get done in an ancap society? i mean, if you already have a community, group or whatever you want to call that entity, that has contracted companies to enforce laws, maintain all the infrastructure, provide schools and whatnot, how to you ever make a new contract, law or whatever? without having voting contracts that turn your ancap into a totally mundane democracy?
how exactly do you maintain total freedom over your property with the need for a society to, at some point, enforce a new rule for everyone?
say for example you want to make it a new rule that its forbidden to have landmines on a property within 200 meter radius of a school.

[AntiCap]

Adolf Hitler was a great believer in "survival of the fittest" and had the different branches of government compete against each other for maximum efficiency. I wonder how well that worked out. Anyone know?

[JoelKatz]

stupid question: how exactly does anything ever get done in an ancap society? i mean, if you already have a community, group or whatever you want to call that entity, that has contracted companies to enforce laws, maintain all the infrastructure, provide schools and whatnot, how to you ever make a new contract, law or whatever? without having voting contracts that turn your ancap into a totally mundane democracy?
how exactly do you maintain total freedom over your property with the need for a society to, at some point, enforce a new rule for everyone?
say for example you want to make it a new rule that its forbidden to have landmines on a property within 200 meter radius of a school.

You don't run the society at the level of specificity. We don't have to change our societal structures to make a trivial rule and neither would an AnCap society. If people wanted the ability to create such rules, they'd create structures with the power to pass them. For example, in our society, we have homeowner's associations that can pass rules that benefit all the people who live in a particular area. Nothing prevents such organizations from existing in an AnCap society.

However, this gets back to the transition problem. It's hard to see how you can make these kinds of organizations when you don't have them already. Theoretically, 100% universal agreement of every landowner in a region is required. Perhaps you could achieve that by using ostracism and social pressure.

I think most AnCap advocates would tell you that they don't want laws that are that specific. They're happy with a general rule that you can't do anything that poses an unreasonable threat to your neighbors. They don't think we need a law to solve every minor problem. (And that's a particularly bad law because it allows some jerk to set up a one person school right next to a landmine factory and blackmail the factory owner.)

[myrkul]

say for example you want to make it a new rule that its forbidden to have landmines on a property within 200 meter radius of a school.

Joel makes some good points, as usual, but he's a minarchist.

You actually wouldn't want to deal with it at that level of generality. Let's say a school wanted to prevent any property installing landmines within 200 meters. (Pretty wise, actually, I'd rather not have my kid blown to bits.) So the school administrators call or visit the locals, conversing with each of them personally. Every property owner within that 200 meters gets a visit, and they negotiate a contract with them. Goes something like this:

Hey, we'd like to ensure the safety of our students, what can we offer to get you to agree to never install landmines?

Once they work out a deal, they'll include a rider where that contract gets incorporated into the next (and all subsequent) owner's purchase agreement.

Problem solved.

[JoelKatz]

Joel makes some good points, as usual, but he's a minarchist.

I'm not exactly a minarchist. I know we have *way* too much government now and I know we could make things a lot better by getting rid of most of it. But I don't pretend to know just how much we can actually get rid of. It's entirely possible (though I don't think it's likely) that we get all the way to minarchy and decide we don't need the rest of government. But I'd prefer not to get bogged down in those theoretical issues because there's so much we just don't know.

And tactically, it's better to build a consensus on the direction we need to go and the fact that we need to go very far in that direction. That could make a broad consensus among Libertarians, Anarchists, Objectivsts, and Minarchists possible.

[justusranvier]

So dissolving of USSR was not a big deal, but formality.

This is where you're missing the big picture.

The dissolving was incredibly signifigant because that's the means by which the rulers dumped the dependent class. The rulers discovered that totalitarian central planning is not an effective method of extracting wealth from the population so they abandoned it for a more efficient (for them) system, and most importantly they defaulted on the promises made to retirees, which were unaffordable even if the rulers cared about paying.

It's a lesson that apparently not many government dependents in the West have learned from.

[Coreadrin_47]

Adolf Hitler was a great believer in "survival of the fittest" and had the different branches of government compete against each other for maximum efficiency. I wonder how well that worked out. Anyone know?

roflmao.  I'm not sure where you got this from, but it is literally as dead wrong as it could possible be.

Hitler was immensely opposed to all decentralized forms of government, specifically stripping away the rights of all of the German states and co-opting those powers. 

page 566 of Mein Kampff "[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states."

Hitler (p. 567) mocked what he called "so-called sovereign states" in Germany because they stood in the way of a centralized Reich with their "impotence" and "fragmentation."

"And so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations, but from ideal considerations as well" (p. 572). Thus, a rule "basic for us National Socialists is derived: A powerful national Reich . . ." (emphasis in original, p. 572).

"Certainly all the states in the world are moving toward a certain unification in their inner organization. And in this Germany will be no exception. Today it is an absurdity to speak of a ‘state sovereignty' of individual provinces . . ." (p. 572)

"the cry for the elimination of centralization is really nothing more than a party machination without any serious thought behind it" and reveals "the inner hypocrisy of these so-called federalistic circles. The federative state idea, like religion in part, is only an instrument for their often unclean party interests" (p. 573).

"Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power" (p. 575).


Do you need any more than that, or did that do enough of a job of showing you that you need to seriously read your actual history and not come to an intellectual discussion armed with a nerf gun and a bag of overcooked pasta...

Hitler was dead opposed to individual state rights.  As was Stalin, as was Muzzonlini, as was Mao.  There are 100 million innocent bodies on those men.  The religion of statism is not one you should be proud to endorse, since it's got more murder, rape, torture, and destruction in the last 100 years than any and all other religions combined in the history of the human race.