The legitimate purpose of military...

[myrkul]

You referenced other security providers who want Snarkies customers.   You stated they would be watching him.  This is the behavior of a union, guild or consortium. 

No, it is the behavior of competitors. They need not work together to watch each other, they can do that just fine on their own.

You might want to go back and re-read the post. I don't think you fully understood it.

And tell me why these competitors will not cooperate to reduce competition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel#Long-term_unsustainability_of_cartels

(Haven't we been over this?)

[TomUnderSea]

All of the stated reasons for a stable cartel apply to this situation.   Same product, no seasonal cycle,  small number of members,public pricing.

Add that violating the cartel earns you cement shoes and it is a very stable cartel.  Military force is a natural monopoly.

AnCap loses, again.

[myrkul]

All of the stated reasons for a stable cartel apply to this situation.   Same product, no seasonal cycle,  small number of members,public pricing.

Ahh, but it's not all the same product. Some may offer video surveillance, some might prefer the more personal touch, patrol cars, etc. And while the number of possible suppliers is indeed pretty low in rural areas, in the larger metropolitan areas, the number can be quite high, to say nothing of franchises of firms that are based quite far away. A cartel would encounter quite a bit of instability as a result of mavericks.

Add that violating the cartel earns you cement shoes and it is a very stable cartel.  Military force is a natural monopoly.

I don't think you actually understand the meaning of that term. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

AnCap loses, again.

You do know that repeating this over and over again doesn't make it true, don't you? I know it's reassuring to your small, frightened, statist mind, but it's just whistling in the dark.

[myrkul]

First off, comparing a cartel to an employer/employee relationship is just stupid. The dynamics, and the people involved, are completely different. Historical cartels have indeed broken up for exactly the reasons game theory suggests. So, whose model fails to predict human behavior, now?

Secondly, Why this fetish on government defining the laws? Common law works just fine:

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.

Considering that the supposed cartel members' job is to do the enforcing of that legal code, the disincentives would still be quite strong.

[rider650]

Just read through all of this thread, and enjoyed it very much!

The arguments exchanged are just another proof for me that voluntarism and the concepts of selfownership and nonaggression are not only ethically superior, but are also the only concept of society that takes into accout the human behavior as it is.

While defenders of states and collectivism in general either depend on humans being super non-selfish (like communism wanting to evolve humanity into completely abandoning self-interest) or depend on humans being super villains (like all the defenders of the state being a somewhat less evil but over-powerful thug, keeping all the more evil individuals in check) the anarchocapitalist just takes the human being as it is:
All characteristics of a wide population are distributed corresponding to the Gaussian normal distribution. Being "good" or "bad" is also distributed this way.
Very few people are either saints or supervillains, all the rest is somewhere in between.
Market forces would keep the few evildoers in check, while rewarding the peacefully cooperating people, because voluntary and mutually beneficial cooperation is the most economical behavior of all (our wealth as a result of division of labor is proof for that) - so people adhering to this kind of behavior profit the most.
An anarchocapitalist society would reward people cooperating out of self-interest (and not require people being saints like communism) while brutally punishing rulebreakers.
On the other hand, our democratic statist society is a competition of crooks ( to use Hans-Hermann Hoppe`s words), where the biggest crook gets the jackpot by becoming head of the state. As head of the state he can commit agression against his subjects (he`s the ultimate decisionmaker for them and can always decide in his own favor in a dispute between himself and one of his subjects) and against other states (taxpayer-financed attack wars) and doesn`t have to pay the price for it (his tax-subjects do that).
So he can get away with uneconomical aggressive behavior. This current state of international relationship between states is what blabla confuses with true anarchy. The relationship of todays nations between each other is the way it is (trade wars, hot wars, general crookery of every kind) not because it is a state of true anarchy, but because the "international community" is a collection of evil organisations that can make their subjects pay the prices of their actions, while they themselves can reap the profits.

[myrkul]

First off, comparing a cartel to an employer/employee relationship is just stupid.

O RLY??

YA, RLY.

The dynamics, and the people involved, are completely different. Historical cartels have indeed broken up for exactly the reasons game theory suggests. So, whose model fails to predict human behavior, now?

[myrkul]

The dynamics, and the people involved, are completely different. Historical cartels have indeed broken up for exactly the reasons game theory suggests. So, whose model fails to predict human behavior, now?

Your model fails because as I just showed you, the theory also applies to businesses in equal measure. I have already explained that if governments ceased to exist, the lifting of various restrictions would mean that so-called cartels would be indistinguishable from other businesses.

1. You've shown no such thing. The partner companies in a cartel are not analogous to employees.
2. Which restrictions would those be? The only one I can think of is the explicit restriction on forming a cartel, which is not mentioned as any of the reasons why cartels are unstable.

[myrkul]

The dynamics, and the people involved, are completely different. Historical cartels have indeed broken up for exactly the reasons game theory suggests. So, whose model fails to predict human behavior, now?

Your model fails because as I just showed you, the theory also applies to businesses in equal measure. I have already explained that if governments ceased to exist, the lifting of various restrictions would mean that so-called cartels would be indistinguishable from other businesses.

1. You've shown no such thing. The partner companies in a cartel are not analogous to employees.

Group of companies working under the same leadership.
Group of employees working under the same leadership.
Group of people working under the same leadership.
The only difference is in the legal definitions and paperwork of 'companies' vs 'employees' vs 'people'. Governments make those definitions.
Therefore your argument is semantic.

So, Who's the "leadership" in a cartel? Hmm? The definition of a cartel is a group of companies collaborating, not "working under the same leadership." The member companies are not employees, they are not like employees, because the dynamic is nothing like the employee/employer relationship. The people making the decisions for those companies are not like employees. A cartel is like a wolf pack made entirely of alphas.

2. Which restrictions would those be? The only one I can think of is the explicit restriction on forming a cartel, which is not mentioned as any of the reasons why cartels are unstable.

Employer-employee contracts are highly regulated and protected by governments. So you're relying on government to protect you from the evilness of cartels...

Tsk... You're relying on your flawed assumption that a cartel is essentially the same as a employer/employee relationship. Since it's not, this is just more of your usual bullshit.

[myrkul]

A cartel is like a wolf pack made entirely of alphas.

So you're basically saying: "cartels will fail to co-operate because they're not very co-operative."

Yes, essentially. There is incentive for them to not cooperate.

Each member of a cartel would be able to make more profit by breaking the agreement (producing a greater quantity or selling at a lower price than that agreed) than it could make by abiding by it.

Would you please stop arguing established facts? You're wasting both your, and my, time.

[wdmw]

The missing piece that brings anarcho-capitalism together is the Non-Aggression Principle.  It's been demonstrated that an-cap can work without it, but there is the potential (not certainty) for warlords, subversion of justice, and other FUD.

I think a more stable and certain form would be State Voluntarism.  This would entail an initial establishment of a voluntary collective in which all participants agree to abide by the NAP, and agree to defend themselves and others from aggression.  The voluntary state would lose its teeth if participation is voluntary, taxes are voluntary, and there is no monopoly on services provided.

This society could even have laws, regulations, etc., as long as they are unanimously agreed to and full representation is possible.

[myrkul]

I think a more stable and certain form would be State Voluntarism.  This would entail an initial establishment of a voluntary collective in which all participants agree to abide by the NAP, and agree to defend themselves and others from aggression.  The voluntary state would lose its teeth if participation is voluntary, taxes are voluntary, and there is no monopoly on services provided.

This society could even have laws, regulations, etc., as long as they are unanimously agreed to and full representation is possible.

That is AnCap. All AnCap actually is is a relinquishing of the monopoly on government services - most of which don't need to be provided by the government anyway.

[wdmw]

I think a more stable and certain form would be State Voluntarism.  This would entail an initial establishment of a voluntary collective in which all participants agree to abide by the NAP, and agree to defend themselves and others from aggression.  The voluntary state would lose its teeth if participation is voluntary, taxes are voluntary, and there is no monopoly on services provided.

This society could even have laws, regulations, etc., as long as they are unanimously agreed to and full representation is possible.

That is AnCap. All AnCap actually is is a relinquishing of the monopoly on government services - most of which don't need to be provided by the government anyway.

The arguments made in this thread against ancap all assume that it's totally cool in an ancap society to bribe, coerce, force, aggress, and otherwise violate the NAP, and that's what will certainly happen because its in people's self-interest to do so.  I'm trying to point out the flaw in this line of thinking.

I think the term voluntarism better explains the concept that all people in this society would agree to the NAP as a pre-requisite for participation.  Despite what a true believer might feel about the word 'anarchy', to the majority of people, which are statists and generally non-thinkers, it has negative connotations.

[myrkul]

I think a more stable and certain form would be State Voluntarism.  This would entail an initial establishment of a voluntary collective in which all participants agree to abide by the NAP, and agree to defend themselves and others from aggression.  The voluntary state would lose its teeth if participation is voluntary, taxes are voluntary, and there is no monopoly on services provided.

This society could even have laws, regulations, etc., as long as they are unanimously agreed to and full representation is possible.

That is AnCap. All AnCap actually is is a relinquishing of the monopoly on government services - most of which don't need to be provided by the government anyway.

The arguments made in this thread against ancap all assume that it's totally cool in an ancap society to bribe, coerce, force, aggress, and otherwise violate the NAP, and that's what will certainly happen because its in people's self-interest to do so.  I'm trying to point out the flaw in this line of thinking.

I think the term voluntarism better explains the concept that all people in this society would agree to the NAP as a pre-requisite for participation.  Despite what a true believer might feel about the word 'anarchy', to the majority of people, which are statists and generally non-thinkers, it has negative connotations.

It's not even necessary that all people agree to follow the NAP. Most people do not like being aggressed against. Even those who like doing the aggression don't like being aggressed upon. They would therefore select, if given the choice, the government that they feel best protects them from aggression. And since they are given the choice, that includes aggression by the government itself.

[hawkeye]

I think the NAP is just really something that we can point to as pointing out the invalidity of government.  In a free society it would be a perfectly valid concept to protect yourself or hire someone to protect yourself and your property.  Most people would say that is OK just as most people say it's an OK thing to do now.

The only difference today is that most people either don't know (because they haven't thought about it) or don't want to accept that the government violates these principles that civilized society considers important.

[myrkul]

I think a more stable and certain form would be State Voluntarism.  This would entail an initial establishment of a voluntary collective in which all participants agree to abide by the NAP, and agree to defend themselves and others from aggression.  The voluntary state would lose its teeth if participation is voluntary, taxes are voluntary, and there is no monopoly on services provided.

This society could even have laws, regulations, etc., as long as they are unanimously agreed to and full representation is possible.

That is AnCap. All AnCap actually is is a relinquishing of the monopoly on government services - most of which don't need to be provided by the government anyway.

The arguments made in this thread against ancap all assume that it's totally cool in an ancap society to bribe, coerce, force, aggress, and otherwise violate the NAP, and that's what will certainly happen because its in people's self-interest to do so.  I'm trying to point out the flaw in this line of thinking.

I think the term voluntarism better explains the concept that all people in this society would agree to the NAP as a pre-requisite for participation.  Despite what a true believer might feel about the word 'anarchy', to the majority of people, which are statists and generally non-thinkers, it has negative connotations.

So people would be able to opt-in if/when it suits them, and opt-out again if it's not working for them?

"Opting out" would make you an outlaw, with the potential consequences outlined above. It would also make your life very difficult. Large purchases (anything that required a deal of trust), or anything that could result in a dispute, would be unavailable to you, by virtue of the fact that you have explicitly stated that you're not trustworthy, by opting out.

Voluntaryism isn't opting in and out of society, it's the idea that all human interactions should be voluntary. No person should force another person to do anything against their will.

[FenixRD]

By the FSM, this is a painfully delicious thread. Myrkul, you are a bloody genius. You'd have to be to not only support your position without any missteps, but to unflaggingly continue taking the high ground despite juvenile and transparent attempts to goad you into anger (repetition of conclusive phrases; pedantic and errant use of quote-unquote logical fallacies by an individual who seemingly has only taken a 3crH poly-sci debate course and possibly failed).

I know you are only arguing -- with what can best be described as a troll in elven clothing -- to allow other readers to understand the concepts behind a well-thought AnCap system, but bravo sir anyway. I would have been hypocritically reduced to a violent sociopath about four pages back.

Knowing the almost-universal agreement that I have seen from you and a few other genuinely brilliant students of game theory on this view, my belief in my own convictions is restored. I believe Nash himself would enjoy your company. I have a very high opinion of myself so I do not confer these compliments lightly, Myrkul. It is a statistically rare occasion that I meet (lol, "meet" ... internet) someone who is blatantly smarter than I am. Love that you're on this forum. If I ever wind up in allodial possession of a country-sized piece of land, you'd better believe I will be hunting you down for help in getting the place running. That is a very short list of people, my friend.

BBB, your arguments remind me of my brother's full-on chaotic anarchist arguments when he was a freshman in college, in the sense that they have the same illogical twist and misuse of basic definitions that made it impossible to argue with him. (Like your failure to snap to the accepted definition of natural monopoly.) He got into this phase where he would babble about relative perceptions relating to quantum metaphysics (swear to god). I later found out that he had taken to smoking about a half an ounce of hydroponically-grown ganja in a vaporizer, per day, and was stoned out of his fucking mind every waking hour. He's okay now, but at the time you could have sworn he was possessed by the most argumentative, illogical, pants-on-head retarded demon ever. Not that you could ever convince him of this, at the time, of course.

[myrkul]

I know you are only arguing -- with what can best be described as a troll in elven clothing -- to allow other readers to understand the concepts behind a well-thought AnCap system, but bravo sir anyway. I would have been hypocritically reduced to a violent sociopath about four pages back.

LOL.... All I can really say is "Aw, Shucks."

Honestly, I've just spent a lot of time both devoting thought to the issues, and reading the words of much greater minds than I. I've got some serious giants to stand on the shoulders of; Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Kinsella, Konkin, de Molinari, Molyneux, the list goes on.

[FenixRD]

I know you are only arguing -- with what can best be described as a troll in elven clothing -- to allow other readers to understand the concepts behind a well-thought AnCap system, but bravo sir anyway. I would have been hypocritically reduced to a violent sociopath about four pages back.

LOL.... All I can really say is "Aw, Shucks."

Honestly, I've just spent a lot of time both devoting thought to the issues, and reading the words of much greater minds than I. I've got some serious giants to stand on the shoulders of; Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Kinsella, Konkin, de Molinari, Molyneux, the list goes on.

To an extent, I'm reminded of this: http://www.ted.com/talks/adora_svitak.html

Reminded because you, and those like you, are too idealistic and smart to be older than 25, but simultaneously and paradoxically too wise, worldly, and well-read to be younger than 40+.

This is a possible trend in society enabled by the internet age and the near-instantaneous propagation of information. Age typically jades people as they make excuses to themselves and eventually they decide they love big brother, because they have made concessions and betrayed their own ideals to survive in a system that as their younger selves, they knew was broken. I am hopeful we have ways around that path now, more than ever before. Just as that 12-year-old can already be wise, I am confident that by staying well-read and critical, we can also be more aged and yet still remain sharp, flexible and idealistic.

We no longer have to be 40 and deeply entrenched within the system to realize just how catastrophically rotten the system is. Which means we are still free to change it.

Incidentally, the two books you mentioned earlier in the thread, I have picked up. I have only recently realized that my position can be described as basically AnCap. I was in a deep discussion the other day about the miserable condition of the highway system in cities (illogical ramp layouts and poor planning resulting in bottlenecks and accidents) and how much more sense it would make to have roads be some form of privately-managed system where they compete for contracts and are judged on innovation and ability to manage traffic through road design, etc. There have been myriad innovations in mitigating network congestion. Roads are no different -- in fact, they hired rail and paved road "network engineers" in the early days of designing the tier 1 topology and backbone -- except that they are a non-natural monopoly and therefore have no motivation to innovate, improve, be fiscally responsible, etc.

It's 3 AM for me though so I'm kind of rambling at this point, but anyway, just wanted to say thanks for being a voice of sanity, and that I noticed.

edit: I should mention that it is 3 AM for me in Japan, where I am at this moment; however, the highways in Japan are largely fine because the Japanese tend to defy every rule there is regarding how shitty things should be under a monopoly. The highways I described are of course US highways.

[myrkul]

I know you are only arguing -- with what can best be described as a troll in elven clothing -- to allow other readers to understand the concepts behind a well-thought AnCap system, but bravo sir anyway. I would have been hypocritically reduced to a violent sociopath about four pages back.

LOL.... All I can really say is "Aw, Shucks."

Honestly, I've just spent a lot of time both devoting thought to the issues, and reading the words of much greater minds than I. I've got some serious giants to stand on the shoulders of; Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Kinsella, Konkin, de Molinari, Molyneux, the list goes on.

To an extent, I'm reminded of this: http://www.ted.com/talks/adora_svitak.html

Reminded because you, and those like you, are too idealistic and smart to be older than 25, but simultaneously and paradoxically too wise, worldly, and well-read to be younger than 40+.

I'm actually in my mid thirties.

[myrkul]

He conceded that there is no "world government" as such, but he cannot bring himself to admit the implication: therefore governments must be natural monopolies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

A monopoly describes a situation where all (or most) sales in a market are undertaken by a single firm. A natural monopoly by contrast is a condition on the cost-technology of an industry whereby it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be concentrated in a single firm.

Companies that take advantage of economies of scale often run into problems of bureaucracy; these factors interact to produce an "ideal" size for a company, at which the company's average cost of production is minimized. If that ideal size is large enough to supply the whole market, then that market is a natural monopoly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

A company wanting to monopolise a market may engage in various types of deliberate action to exclude competitors or eliminate competition. Such actions include collusion, lobbying governmental authorities, and force (see anti-competitive practices).

(Note that those actions do not establish a "natural" monopoly, just a monopoly.)