Myrkul Sells AnCap...

[firefop]

Myrkul, I thought this would be better off in it's own thread.

Lets start with a definition of what ancap is, then I'll tell you the things that make me raise an eyebrow 

[Dalkore]

Reserved. 

[myrkul]

AnCap, A.K.A. Market Anarchism, is...

a libertarian political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics.

I think Wikipedia does a fine job of defining it, and I will be using that page as a reference for this thread.

[firefop]

Lets start with privately funded security.

What happens when one such security provider becomes tyrannical and starts abusing people?

[myrkul]

Lets start with privately funded security.

What happens when one such security provider becomes tyrannical and starts abusing people?

Then they are criminal, are they not?

What happens when any organized criminal group starts abusing people? The other security providers put a stop to it.

[firefop]

Then they are criminal, are they not?

What happens when any organized criminal group starts abusing people? The other security providers put a stop to it.

I just don't agree. The more likely scenario would be multiple other security providers getting involved on both sides of the dispute and we'd have a series of mini-wars between them.

We can see the examples throughout history in feudalism. Or even in the american old west (where is was quite common for a company to have it's own army of hired guns).

Now I would feel just fine defending my personal property and liberty from another individual --- but how is 'everyman' supposed to secure himself and his property from any number of 'security providers' taking orders from... anyone who pays them?

[meowmeowbrowncow]

In a sentence what ppl are fearful of in this model is

Uneven administration of justice.  Unpredictable and arbitrary outcomes.

But to the extent that our own 'democratic' representative governments deliver unpredictable and arbitrary outcomes at the cost of taxpayers other models seem appealing.

[myrkul]

Then they are criminal, are they not?

What happens when any organized criminal group starts abusing people? The other security providers put a stop to it.

I just don't agree. The more likely scenario would be multiple other security providers getting involved on both sides of the dispute and we'd have a series of mini-wars between them.

I don't find it likely that many (or, for that matter, any) other agencies would side with the abusive group. If nothing else, they'd want the customers of that abusive group to come to them, and so would not act to protect the abusive group from the consequences of it's actions.

Now I would feel just fine defending my personal property and liberty from another individual --- but how is 'everyman' supposed to secure himself and his property from any number of 'security providers' taking orders from... anyone who pays them?

He wouldn't have to. Security providers provide security. They defend people, places, or property. There's no incentive to conquer, when defense is so much easier, not to mention safer. Keep in mind, also, the basis of AnCap:

In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow." This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression.

Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership.

[drakahn]

What if the abusive group is also in control of the worlds oil?

Or the MPAA decide anyone that uses a camera is violating their rights?

Or any large group of private police want to be the ONLY private police?

What happens if someone is living in an area where parody is a protected right, and the original owners of the material don't agree? does smalltown inc. police fight against the larger force? or just lay down and take it?


Personally I think private police could be a much better system than we have now, Government thugs, but it would also have its problems...

[myrkul]

What if the abusive group is also in control of the worlds oil?

All of it? Everywhere? Setting aside the fact that that's absolutely ridiculous, there's plenty of alternatives. Hemp oil, for instance, works great as a diesel fuel.

Or the MPAA decide anyone that uses a camera is violating their rights?

Good luck trying to enforce that.

Or any large group of private police want to be the ONLY private police?

See "criminal group," above.

What happens if someone is living in an area where parody is a protected right, and the original owners of the material don't agree? does smalltown inc. police fight against the larger force? or just lay down and take it?

Well, small forces like that would likely have mutual aid contracts with larger forces, and that's even assuming it gets to violence. Arbitration would have it hashed out long before that.

Personally I think private police could be a much better system than we have now, Government thugs, but it would also have its problems...

Security is a service, just like drycleaning. And just like in drycleaning, monopolies suck at providing that service. Market competition delivers it much better.

[Dalkore]

I don't find it likely that many (or, for that matter, any) other agencies would side with the abusive group. If nothing else, they'd want the customers of that abusive group to come to them, and so would not act to protect the abusive group from the consequences of it's actions.

Why do you think this is unlikely?  People take sides and have points of view.   People do not operate is this neutral manner and only with their customers best interest.  

[Luno]

I should stay the hell out of this thread:


We are already living in an ANCAP society. Feudal warlords and thugs evolved into what we have today. Is this thread a kind of back to the roots of dog eat dog?

Would we all benefit if society was a motor cycle club?

ANCAP supreme court:


What make you believe that you wont be slaves in such a society?

[myrkul]

I should stay the hell out of this thread:

Yes, you should.

I don't find it likely that many (or, for that matter, any) other agencies would side with the abusive group. If nothing else, they'd want the customers of that abusive group to come to them, and so would not act to protect the abusive group from the consequences of it's actions.

Why do you think this is unlikely?  People take sides and have points of view.   People do not operate is this neutral manner and only with their customers best interest. 

But it's not in their customer's best interest that they're doing that. They're acting in their own (and possibly their shareholder's) best interest. More customers means more money. More money is good for the company. Siding with the group of people that are abusing their customers will not get them more customers. It might (read: definitely will) even lose them some (read: most, if not all) of their customers, to groups that aren't OK with abusing their customers.

Look at it this way: If you lived in North Korea, and moving to South Korea were as simple as signing a piece of paper, would you do it?

[Dalkore]

I should stay the hell out of this thread:

Yes, you should.

I don't find it likely that many (or, for that matter, any) other agencies would side with the abusive group. If nothing else, they'd want the customers of that abusive group to come to them, and so would not act to protect the abusive group from the consequences of it's actions.

Why do you think this is unlikely?  People take sides and have points of view.   People do not operate is this neutral manner and only with their customers best interest. 

But it's not in their customer's best interest that they're doing that. They're acting in their own (and possibly their shareholder's) best interest. More customers means more money. More money is good for the company. Siding with the group of people that are abusing their customers will not get them more customers. It might (read: definitely will) even lose them some (read: most, if not all) of their customers, to groups that aren't OK with abusing their customers.

In text-book this may be written.  The world is not that simplistic.  People and companies do many ranges of actions for many reasons that sometime fit in your mold and many times do not.   I actually find more money can many times be quite bad for a company, they lose their culture, character, what they stood for in the market place.  History is litter with examples.  Perfect example in modern times, Google and Apple.   Example from history, British East Indian Company, Llyods of London, Standard Oil, etc..

[amagimetals]

In text-book this may be written.  The world is not that simplistic.  People and companies do many ranges of actions for many reasons that sometime fit in your mold and many times do not.   I actually find more money can many times be quite bad for a company, they lose their culture, character, what they stood for in the market place.  History is litter with examples.  Perfect example in modern times, Google and Apple.   Example from history, British East Indian Company, Llyods of London, Standard Oil, etc..

You are mingling the current system with what may be under anarcho-capitalism. I don't think companies would be as big as they are today under anarcho-capitalism because they cannot rent seek (spend resources to lobby government for the purpose of increasing barriers to entry for competition).

The basic premise of anarcho-capitalism is that individuals accept consequences of their actions, whether they are considered positive or negative. It's not a utopia because "bad" things (rape, murder, crime, etc.) can and will happen.

[myrkul]

I don't find it likely that many (or, for that matter, any) other agencies would side with the abusive group. If nothing else, they'd want the customers of that abusive group to come to them, and so would not act to protect the abusive group from the consequences of it's actions.

Why do you think this is unlikely?  People take sides and have points of view.   People do not operate is this neutral manner and only with their customers best interest. 

But it's not in their customer's best interest that they're doing that. They're acting in their own (and possibly their shareholder's) best interest. More customers means more money. More money is good for the company. Siding with the group of people that are abusing their customers will not get them more customers. It might (read: definitely will) even lose them some (read: most, if not all) of their customers, to groups that aren't OK with abusing their customers.

In text-book this may be written.  The world is not that simplistic.  People and companies do many ranges of actions for many reasons that sometime fit in your mold and many times do not.   I actually find more money can many times be quite bad for a company, they lose their culture, character, what they stood for in the market place.  History is litter with examples.  Perfect example in modern times, Google and Apple.   Example from history, British East Indian Company, Llyods of London, Standard Oil, etc..

You may need to revise your history. I'm not familiar with the story of Lloyds of London, but I do know that the British East India company was a Crown Charter. In other words, a royally granted monopoly. Yeah, pretty much exactly what I'm advocating removing. Standard Oil reduced oil prices drastically. They had, at their peak, only about 88% of the market share.

Google and Apple, I don't see doing anything I would remotely complain about - especially since they're pretty much in direct competition at this point.

The one thing both capitalists and communists agree on is that you can always count on a capitalist to be a greedy fucker. Communists view this as a bad thing, to be stomped out. AnCaps see this as a good thing, to be harnessed.

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

Now, he was talking about not outsourcing, here, but the key part of the quote is this:
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
Even 230 years ago, we knew that people acting in their own interest, as long as they don't act specifically against others' interest, will result in a more prosperous society.

[firefop]

He wouldn't have to. Security providers provide security. They defend people, places, or property. There's no incentive to conquer, when defense is so much easier, not to mention safer. Keep in mind, also, the basis of AnCap:

In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow." This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression.

Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership.

That's what I have an issue with right there --- the entire idea of NAP ever working globally. I would assert that any time a majority (or even a vast majority) agrees with the NAP --- then it's going to spur those who don't into drastic action that would end with destruction on a massive scale.

The purely logistical problems involved with letting anyone use another security provider at will is going to make actually providing that security next to impossible. You'd need to have perfect information and nearly instant transportation (think beam down a security team).

Assuming people moving between providers, you've either have a single provider over large areas (as they're clearly dominant and the best at the job) - or your have complete fragmentation (like we do with internet service providers, cell phone providers etc). In the first case, we end up with a very large armed security force with a scary amount of power, sitting on a large territory, just waiting to be corrupted --- and in the second case, we've got a bunch of providers who because of the cost and logistics aren't agile enough to defend against... much of anything really.

[myrkul]

That's what I have an issue with right there --- the entire idea of NAP ever working globally. I would assert that any time a majority (or even a vast majority) agrees with the NAP --- then it's going to spur those who don't into drastic action that would end with destruction on a massive scale.

What, you think the agressionists are going to nuke the world? Possibly, but possible in today's society, too. And arguably, more likely.

The purely logistical problems involved with letting anyone use another security provider at will is going to make actually providing that security next to impossible. You'd need to have perfect information and nearly instant transportation (think beam down a security team).

That old addage, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." wouldn't change, and it's no less true now than it would be then. Which is why AnCap supports the right of every individual to see to their own defense by carrying whatever personal weapons they see fit.

Assuming people moving between providers, you've either have a single provider over large areas (as they're clearly dominant and the best at the job) - or your have complete fragmentation (like we do with internet service providers, cell phone providers etc). In the first case, we end up with a very large armed security force with a scary amount of power, sitting on a large territory, just waiting to be corrupted --- and in the second case, we've got a bunch of providers who because of the cost and logistics aren't agile enough to defend against... much of anything really.

But the police don't typically stop crimes, either... At least with a market system, the incentive would be to try, rather than to just tell the poor schlub "Sorry, no duty to protect." And even the mass of little agencies can effectively defend against external threat. Arguably better, in fact, due to the fact that there would be no central authority to capture, and they would be a defense-in-depth rather than a shell defense.

[firefop]

That old addage, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." wouldn't change, and it's no less true now than it would be then. Which is why AnCap supports the right of every individual to see to their own defense by carrying whatever personal weapons they see fit.

Assuming people moving between providers, you've either have a single provider over large areas (as they're clearly dominant and the best at the job) - or your have complete fragmentation (like we do with internet service providers, cell phone providers etc). In the first case, we end up with a very large armed security force with a scary amount of power, sitting on a large territory, just waiting to be corrupted --- and in the second case, we've got a bunch of providers who because of the cost and logistics aren't agile enough to defend against... much of anything really.

But the police don't typically stop crimes, either... At least with a market system, the incentive would be to try, rather than to just tell the poor schlub "Sorry, no duty to protect." And even the mass of little agencies can effectively defend against external threat. Arguably better, in fact, due to the fact that there would be no central authority to capture, and they would be a defense-in-depth rather than a shell defense.

I think the defense in depth portion of this is correct, assuming that the invader makes a distinction between civilian and military. If they're only goal was to kill everyone and take the land - then I think we'd regret getting rid of the state military. Any sort of external invasion is highly unlikely in my opinion (largely due to information traveling so quickly via internet).

Good point - police don't actually prevent crime.

Ok, so given that the police aren't able to prevent crime currently - and neither could a security provider... then I don't see any real incentive for anyone to pay for that service. Instead I'd imagine we'd simply have a wanted list - paid for by the victims (or relatives of them) and our security providers have become bounty hunters... with no economic incentive to grow large enough to worry about corruption.


~

Lets move on to the issue with civil disputes - We have to assume that property rights exist and are globally accepted in some way. How would someone be made whole after grand-theft... other than simply hiring a bounty hunter to go after the crook?

[myrkul]

If their only goal was to kill everyone and take the land - then I think we'd regret getting rid of the state military.

Maybe, maybe not... after all, a State military defending a disarmed populous means you need only defeat the military, and the population is easy fodder. A defense-in-depth, combined with an armed populous is a very tough nut to crack. Took the Brits hundreds of years to take over Ireland. If they intend to just nuke the population with a Neutron bomb or something, I'd point out that citizens of a democratic republic die just as easily to that method as do AnCaps.

Lets move on to the issue with civil disputes - We have to assume that property rights exist and are globally accepted in some way. How would someone be made whole after grand-theft... other than simply hiring a bounty hunter to go after the crook?

Well, insurance is typically how someone is made whole nowadays, after a large loss like that, I see no reason to change that. That would, however, put the incentive on the insurance agency to recover the money, or at least prevent further loss from that source.