Actual Problems with AnCap

[RurrayMothbard]

Just realized that that is totally tl;dr (I get carried away sometimes). But I should point out that this debate is speculative, and will likely remain speculative. If AnCap was a good way to (un)govern a state, one would think that it would have caught on somewhere in the marketplace of sovereign states. If Medieval Iceland is the only example of AnCap--and even that is subject to dispute--it doesn't seem to bode well. Hell, Milton Friedman and his Chicago boys had an opportunity to create an extremely libertarian state that would be enforced by a dictator, and even that ended up quite a bit of statism involved (e.g., Chile's version of Social Security is privatized, but it is very tightly regulated).

[1714148954]

1714148954

[miln40]

1) Such a society may have difficulty organizing in the face of an external threat.

Iraq faced a significant external threat in the form of a vastly militarily superior enemy with virtually unlimited resources.

Was government-organized defense more effective or was spontaneously-organized resistance more effective at preventing this external enemy from achieving its goals?

The Iraqi resistance is anything but disorganized. They have weapon-smuggling channels from other Arab states, they Al Queda and other religious organisations providing training and men. In fact, they have a pretty significant command-and-control structure, it's just that it's very branched and asymmetric.

Just realized that that is totally tl;dr (I get carried away sometimes). But I should point out that this debate is speculative, and will likely remain speculative. If AnCap was a good way to (un)govern a state, one would think that it would have caught on somewhere in the marketplace of sovereign states. If Medieval Iceland is the only example of AnCap--and even that is subject to dispute--it doesn't seem to bode well. Hell, Milton Friedman and his Chicago boys had an opportunity to create an extremely libertarian state that would be enforced by a dictator, and even that ended up quite a bit of statism involved (e.g., Chile's version of Social Security is privatized, but it is very tightly regulated).

This and your previous post I thank you for was a good read!

[justusranvier]

The Iraqi resistance is anything but disorganized. They have weapon-smuggling channels from other Arab states, they Al Queda and other religious organisations providing training and men. In fact, they have a pretty significant command-and-control structure, it's just that it's very branched and asymmetric.

But they didn't need a government to create that organization, did they?

[miln40]

The Iraqi resistance is anything but disorganized. They have weapon-smuggling channels from other Arab states, they Al Queda and other religious organisations providing training and men. In fact, they have a pretty significant command-and-control structure, it's just that it's very branched and asymmetric.

But they didn't need a government to create that organization, did they?

They are pretty much a government. They have hierarchical leadership, they have coercive power, they impose taxes (not monetary perhaps, but definitely service). The fact that they are not de jure recognized doesn't really matter much. Hell, they have a strict fundamentalist ideology, which they enforce quite brutally. The Iraqi insurgency is definitely not a bunch of happy AnCap fellows.

[Topazan]

Here's my question re: external threats

Who would negotiate with the foreign power?

In order to get everyone to rally to the defense of the country, there has to be unity of purpose.  There has to be consensus that there is, in fact, a war going on.

Without a government, there would presumably be no restrictions on immigration.  There would be no restrictions against those immigrants importing weapons.  So, foreign troops entering the country is not inherently a hostile act.  There are always going to be racist nutcases claiming that every visitor is an invader, so people would get used to ignoring them.  With a misinformation and propaganda campaign, a genuine invading force could conceal their purpose for some time.

A government could give an ultimatum to a foreign power, that would lead to either the removal of the troops or a formal declaration of war.  In an anarchist society, how do you distinguish between defending your freedom and committing terroristic acts against foreign tourists?

And what if their purpose is not to enslave the country, but to destroy a specific organization within the country that committed some crime against them?  Are we expected to give our lives fighting for some terrorist cell that happens to be hiding out within our country?  But if we don't, we have no sovereignty.

And then who decides when the war's over?  The foreign power has withdrawn their forces, but there's no one to sign a peace treaty.  So when can we resume trade without being considered guilty of treason?  How long do we let the privateers rob and kill people from the other country?

The idea definitely intrigues me, and if someone can explain how an anarchist society achieves some kind of unity of purpose, I would love to hear it.

[myrkul]

Here's my question re: external threats

It's actually several, and I'll answer each individually.

Who would negotiate with the foreign power?

What's to negotiate? Even if there were someone to do the negotiating, the only demands would be to stop attacking, and to pay restitution to the victims. There would be no concessions or compromises on those demands.

In order to get everyone to rally to the defense of the country, there has to be unity of purpose.  There has to be consensus that there is, in fact, a war going on.

Not really. Tanks rolling down the street make it pretty obvious. Nation states have a tendency to announce these sorts of things, anyway.

Without a government, there would presumably be no restrictions on immigration.  There would be no restrictions against those immigrants importing weapons.  So, foreign troops entering the country is not inherently a hostile act.  There are always going to be racist nutcases claiming that every visitor is an invader, so people would get used to ignoring them.  With a misinformation and propaganda campaign, a genuine invading force could conceal their purpose for some time.

True, foreign troops entering the country is not an inherently hostile act. In fact, it would likely happen with a fair amount of regularity, especially if the neighboring nation-states had military bases on their borders. Soldiers like to party, and what better place to party than a place where no intoxicant is illegal? A large group of them might even be welcomed... until they started shooting. At which point they are aggressors, and will be treated as such. But no matter the size of the invading force, they'll still need to "conquer" every house, if they want to "win" the war.

A government could give an ultimatum to a foreign power, that would lead to either the removal of the troops or a formal declaration of war.  In an anarchist society, how do you distinguish between defending your freedom and committing terroristic acts against foreign tourists?

Simple. Until they start shooting, the soldiers are foreign tourists. If/when they start shooting, then they get shot in return.

And what if their purpose is not to enslave the country, but to destroy a specific organization within the country that committed some crime against them?  Are we expected to give our lives fighting for some terrorist cell that happens to be hiding out within our country?  But if we don't, we have no sovereignty.

If an "Al-queda" were hiding out in an AnCap region, they would have the same protection as anyone else. Of course, if they have committed a crime elsewhere, even their protection agency would likely assist the foreign police force. Keep in mind, of course, that they might not have the same definition of "crime" as the foreign police force. A terrorist act certainly qualifies, selling drugs would not.

And then who decides when the war's over?  The foreign power has withdrawn their forces, but there's no one to sign a peace treaty.  So when can we resume trade without being considered guilty of treason?  How long do we let the privateers rob and kill people from the other country?

Treason? Privateers? These words have little or no meaning in an AnCap society. That's the secret to winning the "war." Trade would continue, even with the invading soldiers, most likely. As long as they act peacefully, they're welcome to come and trade. And people who rob and kill people from the nation-state receive no sanction, and no pardon, from the AnCap region. They are never "allowed" to do that. Essentially this all boils down to the fact that in order for a state of war to exist, you need two nation-states. An AnCap region would have no beef with the nation-state itself, since that's no more an entity that you can be mad at than is Coca-Cola. Certainly they'd have nothing against the populace of the nation-state. The individual soldiers, on the other hand, are the ones committing acts of aggression. They're the ones with whom there's a problem, and only because they're acting with aggression.

The idea definitely intrigues me, and if someone can explain how an anarchist society achieves some kind of unity of purpose, I would love to hear it.

Well, your best bet for "unity of purpose" is a defense company. Since it will be their subscribers being attacked, it will be them leading the charge to repel the aggressors. They might even have a clause in their contract which gives a discount to subscribers who agree to serve as a "militia" in the event of an invasion. Call it the "minuteman clause."

[JoelKatz]

Here's my question re: external threats

Who would negotiate with the foreign power?

Negotiate what? There are definitely answer, but they are all going to be fact intensive.

Without a government, there would presumably be no restrictions on immigration.  There would be no restrictions against those immigrants importing weapons.  So, foreign troops entering the country is not inherently a hostile act.  There are always going to be racist nutcases claiming that every visitor is an invader, so people would get used to ignoring them.  With a misinformation and propaganda campaign, a genuine invading force could conceal their purpose for some time.

I think you are reasoning based on a notion of "immigration" that doesn't make sense in this context.

A government could give an ultimatum to a foreign power, that would lead to either the removal of the troops or a formal declaration of war.  In an anarchist society, how do you distinguish between defending your freedom and committing terroristic acts against foreign tourists?

You would distinguish by looking at whether the use of force was offensive or defensive.

The idea definitely intrigues me, and if someone can explain how an anarchist society achieves some kind of unity of purpose, I would love to hear it.

They do it whatever way they think best. I don't think anyone could predict what that way would actually be, and it might depend critically on what organizations serve what purposes and have what interests. If all grocery stores and restaurants in the world were government owned and operated, could you predict what a free market food system would look like? At best, you could guess.

[Topazan]

@myrkul - So, if I understand correctly, the plan is basically to pretend that the nation-state doesn't exist and that everyone is acting as an individual?

Not really. Tanks rolling down the street make it pretty obvious. Nation states have a tendency to announce these sorts of things, anyway.

Not in a country where tanks are sold for recreational use.  Nation-states tend to announce when they're invading another Nation-State, because it tends to be rather noticeable in the first place since there's no other reason their forces would cross the borders.  Contrast that with the way that many colonial governments exercised their power over indigenous tribes, which as I understand it tended to be a much less formal process.

If an "Al-queda" were hiding out in an AnCap region, they would have the same protection as anyone else. Of course, if they have committed a crime elsewhere, even their protection agency would likely assist the foreign police force. Keep in mind, of course, that they might not have the same definition of "crime" as the foreign police force. A terrorist act certainly qualifies, selling drugs would not.

This strikes me as an example of something that would need to be negotiated.  Someone needs to decide whether or not the foreign police force has probable cause to suspect any given member of the cell, and that anyone rendered to the foreign government will receive a fair hearing and an appropriate penalty.  Does the defense agency do all this?

True, foreign troops entering the country is not an inherently hostile act. In fact, it would likely happen with a fair amount of regularity, especially if the neighboring nation-states had military bases on their borders. Soldiers like to party, and what better place to party than a place where no intoxicant is illegal? A large group of them might even be welcomed... until they started shooting. At which point they are aggressors, and will be treated as such. But no matter the size of the invading force, they'll still need to "conquer" every house, if they want to "win" the war.

Treason? Privateers? These words have little or no meaning in an AnCap society. That's the secret to winning the "war." Trade would continue, even with the invading soldiers, most likely. As long as they act peacefully, they're welcome to come and trade. And people who rob and kill people from the nation-state receive no sanction, and no pardon, from the AnCap region. They are never "allowed" to do that. Essentially this all boils down to the fact that in order for a state of war to exist, you need two nation-states. An AnCap region would have no beef with the nation-state itself, since that's no more an entity that you can be mad at than is Coca-Cola. Certainly they'd have nothing against the populace of the nation-state. The individual soldiers, on the other hand, are the ones committing acts of aggression. They're the ones with whom there's a problem, and only because they're acting with aggression.

Thanks, this is something I didn't understand about the AnCap position.

However, it strikes me as extremely problematic from a military point of view.  The AnCap forces would be extremely handicapped if they have to give every single individual the benefit of the doubt.  No attacking supply lines as long as the truckers leave the fighting to others.  A bomber is approaching overhead.   We can't identify the crew, so we don't know if any of them have committed aggression.  Ok, now the bomber has started to bombard the city.  Can we shoot now, or maybe that was the work of a rogue on the crew without the sanction of the others?  If nothing else, you'd never have the initiative.  I can't imagine it would be easy to convince everyone to stick to high-minded non-aggression ideals.

Well, your best bet for "unity of purpose" is a defense company. Since it will be their subscribers being attacked, it will be them leading the charge to repel the aggressors. They might even have a clause in their contract which gives a discount to subscribers who agree to serve as a "militia" in the event of an invasion. Call it the "minuteman clause."

The reason I mentioned privateers is because I pictured the defense being a chaotic, disorganized effort, with groups of volunteers inflicting whatever damage they can.  However, it seems like you're saying it would be the opposite, fought by defense companies practicing a superhuman level of restraint and discipline to ensure only the guilty are harmed.

Thanks, I have learned something.

I think you are reasoning based on a notion of "immigration" that doesn't make sense in this context.

Explain?

They do it whatever way they think best. I don't think anyone could predict what that way would actually be, and it might depend critically on what organizations serve what purposes and have what interests. If all grocery stores and restaurants in the world were government owned and operated, could you predict what a free market food system would look like? At best, you could guess.

Questions that might come up concerning a private food system are:
-How do they feed poor people?
-How do they make sure their customers are eating a healthy diet?

And the answer is "They don't."  People turn to other organizations for these things.  The question of how an AnCap society stays and AnCap society needs a better answer than that, because there would be no one else.

[myrkul]

@myrkul - So, if I understand correctly, the plan is basically to pretend that the nation-state doesn't exist and that everyone is acting as an individual?

More or less. What you maybe don't realize is that effectively, the nation-state doesn't exist. None of them do. It really is just individuals. "Just following orders" didn't work in Nuremberg, and it won't work here, either.

As to the negotiating to get the terrorist group out, that's what arbitration is for.

And the bomber and other judgment calls like that are things that the individuals doing the defending are going to have to decide for themselves... and live with the consequences of their actions, or inaction. For myself, I'd consider that first bomb justification to open fire. I'd also be talking to (or at least at) the crew, letting the know that we're peaceful, but that dropping any bombs will result in their destruction, and they should turn back.

[JoelKatz]

However, it strikes me as extremely problematic from a military point of view.  The AnCap forces would be extremely handicapped if they have to give every single individual the benefit of the doubt.  No attacking supply lines as long as the truckers leave the fighting to others.  A bomber is approaching overhead.   We can't identify the crew, so we don't know if any of them have committed aggression.  Ok, now the bomber has started to bombard the city.  Can we shoot now, or maybe that was the work of a rogue on the crew without the sanction of the others?  If nothing else, you'd never have the initiative.  I can't imagine it would be easy to convince everyone to stick to high-minded non-aggression ideals.

You are confusing an evil with who is responsible for that evil. If you are an evil aggressor, and in fighting you my best option is to shoot an innocent person, then I'll do that, and that is an evil. But it is *your* evil, not *my* evil. My force, even if aimed at an innocent, is still retaliation against your aggression. There is no evil in choosing the option that minimizes evil.

The classic hypothetical is the "shoot through the hostage" example: If an evil madman has a finger on a button that will blow up a school full of children, you may certainly shoot him through a hostage. And the murder of the innocent hostage is a terrible evil. But it's not *your* evil. You have no superior option and your optimum response can never be an evil on your part. What you've done is you've done the good of reducing the madman's evil from causing the death of a school full of children to causing the death of one hostage.

[myrkul]

However, it strikes me as extremely problematic from a military point of view.  The AnCap forces would be extremely handicapped if they have to give every single individual the benefit of the doubt.  No attacking supply lines as long as the truckers leave the fighting to others.  A bomber is approaching overhead.   We can't identify the crew, so we don't know if any of them have committed aggression.  Ok, now the bomber has started to bombard the city.  Can we shoot now, or maybe that was the work of a rogue on the crew without the sanction of the others?  If nothing else, you'd never have the initiative.  I can't imagine it would be easy to convince everyone to stick to high-minded non-aggression ideals.

You are confusing an evil with who is responsible for that evil. If you are an evil aggressor, and in fighting you my best option is to shoot an innocent person, then I'll do that, and that is an evil. But it is *your* evil, not *my* evil. My force, even if aimed at an innocent, is still retaliation against your aggression.

If an evil madman has a finger on a button that will blow up a school full of children, you may certainly shoot him through a hostage. And the murder of the innocent hostage is a terrible evil. But it's not *your* evil. You have no superior option and your optimum response can never be an evil on your part. What you've done is you've done the good of reducing the madman's evil from causing the death of a school full of children to causing the death of one hostage.

Here is where Joel and I disagree. (I suspect this is why he supports a minarchist state.) You've still done evil, and need to recompense for that, but it's less than the evil that would be done had you done nothing, so it's worth it.

[JoelKatz]

Here is where Joel and I disagree. (I suspect this is why he supports a minarchist state.) You've still done evil, and need to recompense for that, but it's less than the evil that would be done had you done nothing, so it's worth it.

I'll give you a hypothetical: You are very poor but carry a gun. A madman is holding an innocent woman hostage. He also has his hand on a button that will blow up a school full of kids. You are essentially 100% certain he will push the button, the bomb will work, and at least 100 kids will be killed. You are nearly certain you can shoot him and kill him before he pushes the button, but you have to shoot him through the hostage, which you are nearly certain will kill her. What should you do?

So what is the right thing to do in the "shoot through the hostage" case? Do nothing and allow the evil madman to blow up the school full of kids? Shoot the woman and be financially and criminally responsible for her death?

My position is that you should shoot through the hostage. This is the choice that minimizes coercion against innocent people. The death of the innocent woman is an evil, but it the madman's evil. You performed the good of reducing his evil -- reducing evil is good.

And I'm not really quite sure it's correct to say I support a minarchist state. I think we should keep shrinking the state so long as it seems sensible to do so and continues to provide benefits. I am not certain where we will wind up stopping. But unless I can convince you to come over to my way of thinking, I presume you'd believe that the only moral thing to do is to completely eliminate all government services and functions immediately -- this second if possible -- regardless of how much chaos, damage, and loss of innocent lives results.

[TheButterZone]

However, it strikes me as extremely problematic from a military point of view.  The AnCap forces would be extremely handicapped if they have to give every single individual the benefit of the doubt.  No attacking supply lines as long as the truckers leave the fighting to others.  A bomber is approaching overhead.   We can't identify the crew, so we don't know if any of them have committed aggression.  Ok, now the bomber has started to bombard the city.  Can we shoot now, or maybe that was the work of a rogue on the crew without the sanction of the others?  If nothing else, you'd never have the initiative.  I can't imagine it would be easy to convince everyone to stick to high-minded non-aggression ideals.

You are confusing an evil with who is responsible for that evil. If you are an evil aggressor, and in fighting you my best option is to shoot an innocent person, then I'll do that, and that is an evil. But it is *your* evil, not *my* evil. My force, even if aimed at an innocent, is still retaliation against your aggression. There is no evil in choosing the option that minimizes evil.

The classic hypothetical is the "shoot through the hostage" example: If an evil madman has a finger on a button that will blow up a school full of children, you may certainly shoot him through a hostage. And the murder of the innocent hostage is a terrible evil. But it's not *your* evil. You have no superior option and your optimum response can never be an evil on your part. What you've done is you've done the good of reducing the madman's evil from causing the death of a school full of children to causing the death of one hostage.

In that case, the hostage being "murdered" would be considered so if 1) the 'murderer' is the bomber, under the felony murder rule (anyone who dies in the commission of a felony, even if they died at a good Samaritan's hand, is considered to be murdered by any/all remaining criminal conspirators) and 2) the shot through the hostage even caused death, when handgun wounds have a rather low mortality rate (20% or less). Plus, if you're trying to shoot through a hostage to a hostage-taker, and you're a good shot, the vital organs of the hostage shouldn't exactly overlap the HT's, so you might be shooting through a non-vital area to get to a vital one. If you're not going for a headshot in hopes of a one shot stop, and waiting for the HT to drift into your sights.

Otherwise, if the hostage were to die, the bomber will have committed felony murder, and the good Sam homicide, but an entirely excusable homicide, if it were obvious the HT had command det wire going to a bomb or you saw the bomb had a cellphone or other radio receiver, antennas attached to it.

I would never be anywhere near certain shooting through a hostage would kill her, considering the aforementioned mortality rate. If you're shooting a HT in the head, you don't shoot the hostage in the head first, because 1) you most likely don't carry a handgun with enough oomph to get through the hostage's skull AND the HT's enough for a one shot stop and 2) if you carry a rifle (unlikely outside theater), you have an easier time aiming around the hostage's vitals. Hell, if the HT is showing his detonator, shoot him in the fricking hand that's holding it.

[myrkul]

And I'm not really quite sure it's correct to say I support a minarchist state.

Fine, then... "accept," rather than "support."

If you're shooting a HT in the head, you don't shoot the hostage in the head first, because 1) you most likely don't carry a handgun with enough oomph to get through the hostage's skull AND the HT's enough for a one shot stop and 2) if you carry a rifle (unlikely outside theater), you have an easier time aiming around the hostage's vitals. Hell, if the HT is showing his detonator, shoot him in the fricking hand that's holding it.

Yeah, pretty much this. If you have to shoot through the hostage, their vitals aren't likely lined up. If you're going to shoot the hostage anyway, you can also shoot them in the leg. That removes the hostage from the equation, while limiting the damage they suffer, and reducing the chances of killing them to stop the hostage taker. The box: Think outside it.

[fornit]

Here is where Joel and I disagree. (I suspect this is why he supports a minarchist state.) You've still done evil, and need to recompense for that, but it's less than the evil that would be done had you done nothing, so it's worth it.

I'll give you a hypothetical: You are very poor but carry a gun. A madman is holding an innocent woman hostage. He also has his hand on a button that will blow up a school full of kids. You are essentially 100% certain he will push the button, the bomb will work, and at least 100 kids will be killed. You are nearly certain you can shoot him and kill him before he pushes the button, but you have to shoot him through the hostage, which you are nearly certain will kill her. What should you do?

So what is the right thing to do in the "shoot through the hostage" case? Do nothing and allow the evil madman to blow up the school full of kids? Shoot the woman and be financially and criminally responsible for her death?

My position is that you should shoot through the hostage. This is the choice that minimizes coercion against innocent people. The death of the innocent woman is an evil, but it the madman's evil. You performed the good of reducing his evil -- reducing evil is good.

"reducing evil is good". i guess that pretty much sums up why rule-based ethics and absolute assessements like "good" and "evil" suck.
i propose a simple solution: you do assess who or what you value more and decide in its favor. otherwise you will always fail to get a satisfying answer to this dilemma. for example, you can just reduce the number of children. at which point does the life of the woman get more important? or replace the children with cute bunnies and kittens: would you kill the woman for a single bunny? or not even for all the bunnies and kittens in the world?
there is just no fundamental answer to this kind of question inside absolute ethics that, in all possible cases, accords with everybodies sense of "just" or "the right thing do to".
forget the notion of "the right thing" and do what you consider best. if you can't stop yourself, bath in self-pity or self-righteousness according to the rules of your chosen ethic afterwards. but please do it silently.

[justusranvier]

you do assess who or what you value more and decide in its favor. otherwise you will always fail to get a satisfying answer to this dilemma. for example, you can just reduce the number of children. at which point does the life of the woman get more important? or replace the children with cute bunnies and kittens: would you kill the woman for a single bunny? or not even for all the bunnies and kittens in the world?
there is just no fundamental answer to this kind of question inside absolute ethics that, in all possible cases, accords with everybodies sense of "just" or "the right thing do to".
forget the notion of "the right thing" and do what you consider best. if you can't stop yourself, bath in self-pity or self-righteousness according to the rules of your chosen ethic afterwards. but please do it silently.

You've identified a problem with utilitarianism, not with ethics itself.

[fornit]

i didnt claim i did.
and the ethic they are arguing about is not utilitarianism. i didnt point out any problems regarding utilitarianism.

[JoelKatz]

Yeah, pretty much this. If you have to shoot through the hostage, their vitals aren't likely lined up. If you're going to shoot the hostage anyway, you can also shoot them in the leg. That removes the hostage from the equation, while limiting the damage they suffer, and reducing the chances of killing them to stop the hostage taker. The box: Think outside it.

I would really like to hear your answer to the hypothetical rather than your answer to some alternate hypothetical. In the hypothetical, shooting through the hostage is nearly certain to kill both the hostage and the madman.

[TheButterZone]

Yeah, pretty much this. If you have to shoot through the hostage, their vitals aren't likely lined up. If you're going to shoot the hostage anyway, you can also shoot them in the leg. That removes the hostage from the equation, while limiting the damage they suffer, and reducing the chances of killing them to stop the hostage taker. The box: Think outside it.

I would really like to hear your answer to the hypothetical rather than your answer to some alternate hypothetical. In the hypothetical, shooting through the hostage is nearly certain to kill both the hostage and the madman.

We reject your fantasy-world hypothetical and substitute our own from reality.

[JoelKatz]

We reject your fantasy-world hypothetical and substitute our own from reality.

I can neither agree with your position nor disagree with it if I don't understand it, and I don't understand it. If you can find some other way to explain it to me such that I understand it, please do.