How to run an Anarchy

[MoonShadow]

Monopolies are protected from actual free market forces, and they can externalize the costs of their inefficiencies onto the taxpayer

Externalizing costs aren't limited to monopolies. Currently regulations keep companies in some kind of line and keep them from externalizing too much of their costs. Without those regulations, and a controlling body to enforce them, how would you keep said companies from doing that?
Granted the overseeing isn't perfect today, but I have a feeling that it could be much worse. Better too obviously.

Not when you consider the reality of "regalatory capture" wherein the industries in question functionally come to regulate themselves because those professionals that are experts in the fields, who are the best persons to regulate an industry, all come from that same industry and return to it after their public tour is over.  This same effect magnifies the competitive advantages of the market leaders, because they have an outsized influence on those same regulators and their decisions as compared to their smaller competition.  This isn't quite the same as monopoly capture of a market, but it all but garrantees that said industry develops regulatory barriers to entry over time.

[1713869875]

1713869875

[1713869875]

1713869875

[1713869875]

1713869875

[1713869875]

1713869875

[JA37]

Not when you consider the reality of "regalatory capture" wherein the industries in question functionally come to regulate themselves because those professionals that are experts in the fields, who are the best persons to regulate an industry, all come from that same industry and return to it after their public tour is over.  This same effect magnifies the competitive advantages of the market leaders, because they have an outsized influence on those same regulators and their decisions as compared to their smaller competition.  This isn't quite the same as monopoly capture of a market, but it all but garrantees that said industry develops regulatory barriers to entry over time.

I agree that this is a problem that should be addressed. I have a feeling that it's not that hard to do.
What solution would you like to see instead of the current one?  How would you like to prevent externalization of costs to gain a competitive advantage?

[LokeRundt]

Monopolies are protected from actual free market forces, and they can externalize the costs of their inefficiencies onto the taxpayer

Externalizing costs aren't limited to monopolies. Currently regulations keep companies in some kind of line and keep them from externalizing too much of their costs. Without those regulations, and a controlling body to enforce them, how would you keep said companies from doing that?
Granted the overseeing isn't perfect today, but I have a feeling that it could be much worse. Better too obviously.

How do you suppose a company can externalize its costs without being in cahoots with the ruling government (who can backup such actions by force)?

[myrkul]

I agree that this is a problem that should be addressed. I have a feeling that it's not that hard to do.
What solution would you like to see instead of the current one?  How would you like to prevent externalization of costs to gain a competitive advantage?

It really is simple. Remove the barriers to entry and the support structure that allows the externalization.

[kylesaisgone]

Personally, I think we'll see something different in the future than what we currently have. People have this outdated notion that an entire geographical region must be under the same laws and restrictions, when it's clear that certain communities have entirely different cultural views, and Government doesn't work because of these heterogeneous populations get into voting wars, and usually nothing good ever comes from it.

I think in the future, we'll see something entirely different, a Federation of sorts. I'm personally of the ancap and agorist persuasion, but I don't think we'll ever see either of these philosophies applied to an actual large geographical area, like the United States. Instead, the Governing system will be a loose Federation of communities/states, where the form of Government is based on tradition (culture) and there will be the possibility of dispute resolution and everything else to settle potential problems. A good example is California; under this sort of Federation type system, California would be entirely free to become a robust social democracy/welfare state, and it won't drag everyone else down. I guess you could kind of say it's similar to the Articles of Confederation, but more modern. This sort of system allows a Government of any flavor, and because there isn't a huge central Government, the propensity towards conflict would be minimized. Issues would still arise, but I think this is the most consistent form of 'Government' as it were (in reality, it's merely  a lack of centralization), and is honestly the only way to keep consistent with the NAP that many libertarians claim to support.

Is it not coercive to force people to live under 'anarchy' if they don't want to, the same way it's coercive to force me to live under a fascist social democracy? Libertarians fail to make this distinction, they just assume everyone will go along with their plan.

[myrkul]

Is it not coercive to force people to live under 'anarchy' if they don't want to, the same way it's coercive to force me to live under a fascist social democracy? Libertarians fail to make this distinction, they just assume everyone will go along with their plan.

Anarchy: We will leave you alone, whether you want it or not!

Nothing's stopping people from joining voluntary hierarchies.

[kylesaisgone]

Right, but there will always be people who depend on an overarching power structure (A government), and depriving them of that desire is still coercive. Under this decentralized Federation anyone would be free to shop around for any Government they so wished for, rather than forcing an entire geographic area to submit to one ideology.

[myrkul]

Right, but there will always be people who depend on an overarching power structure (A government), and depriving them of that desire is still coercive. Under this decentralized Federation anyone would be free to shop around for any Government they so wished for, rather than forcing an entire geographic area to submit to one ideology.

Government kinda requires coercion to fit under the definition of 'Government'. The word you're looking for is Phyle. And I'm 100% behind that idea.

[The Script]

Right, but there will always be people who depend on an overarching power structure (A government), and depriving them of that desire is still coercive. Under this decentralized Federation anyone would be free to shop around for any Government they so wished for, rather than forcing an entire geographic area to submit to one ideology.

Your idea is a massive improvement over the current system and probably more likely to happen than "pure" anarchy. However, I take exception to your argument that somehow people who depend on government will be coerced in anarchy. If there are people who are so dependent on government to tell them what to do and make decisions for them there will certainly be a market with people providing those "services". It's likely they will not even have to pay for them as there will be plenty if sadist, power hungry volunteers who will be willing to control these people's lives.

[JA37]

It really is simple. Remove the barriers to entry and the support structure that allows the externalization.

I agree to a point that you should remove barriers for markets. I'm sure there are unjust rules here and there. I do however believe that there should be certain rules in place, which in some cases could be seen as barriers.
I don't understand what you mean by the second part of your post. Externalization of costs is always an option unless there are rules to prevent it, and obviously some entity to enforce the rules.

[myrkul]

I don't understand what you mean by the second part of your post. Externalization of costs is always an option unless there are rules to prevent it, and obviously some entity to enforce the rules.

Some externalization is always an option, say, for example, self-checkouts, or a reduction in service staff, but without a government to grant and enforce a monopoly, the customers will only take so much.

[JA37]

Some externalization is always an option, say, for example, self-checkouts, or a reduction in service staff, but without a government to grant and enforce a monopoly, the customers will only take so much.

Those are positive externalizations I'd say. Things that companies can do to reduce costs and improve efficiency. There are other, more sinister things that can be done.
Waste disposal? It's expensive to take care of your waste. Let's externalize it and just dump it somewhere. Someone else will bear the cost of that.
Employee safety? It's expensive to protect my employees, except for the most valuable ones. Let's externalize it and have them bear the cost of injuries and/or safety equipment.
Just to name two. There are so many ways that I can think of to externalize costs which would put me ahead of my competitors. Today I can't do that.

[JA37]

How do you suppose a company can externalize its costs without being in cahoots with the ruling government (who can backup such actions by force)?

I'd say that it can happen both with and without government interaction. And how would it be better with anarchy where there's no authority at all? What's to prevent a company from doing exactly whatever it wants? Today there is a ruleset, although weak one in places.

[goodlord666]

Anarchy runs YOU.

[LokeRundt]

How do you suppose a company can externalize its costs without being in cahoots with the ruling government (who can backup such actions by force)?

I'd say that it can happen both with and without government interaction. And how would it be better with anarchy where there's no authority at all? What's to prevent a company from doing exactly whatever it wants? Today there is a ruleset, although weak one in places.

So the company is going to decide it's cheaper to deal with all the suits brought against it by the owners of the land they're dumping on, not to mention the customer base they lose?

[JA37]

So the company is going to decide it's cheaper to deal with all the suits brought against it by the owners of the land they're dumping on, not to mention the customer base they lose?

That's a very reactive way of dealing with problems. The damage has already been done by the time suits are filed, and the damage can be permanent.
And yes, it can be cheaper. I know for a fact at least one company I've worked for who has done so. Calculated potential damages and decided that it would cost more to fix their product than to pay those who got hurt by it.
And lost customer base isn't such a big problem as you might think it is. Bad press can be handled. Advertising does wonders. Besides, most people don't care if someone else was hurt in the process as long as they get the goods cheaply.

And you don't have to dump it on someone else's land. You can dump it on your own. It has happened, and it probably will again. I don't see anarchy fixing this. I have a feeling it'll get worse. And suing someone for "I might get sick 20 years from now" is quite hard.

[vector76]

How do you suppose a company can externalize its costs without being in cahoots with the ruling government (who can backup such actions by force)?

I'd say that it can happen both with and without government interaction. And how would it be better with anarchy where there's no authority at all? What's to prevent a company from doing exactly whatever it wants? Today there is a ruleset, although weak one in places.

So the company is going to decide it's cheaper to deal with all the suits brought against it by the owners of the land they're dumping on, not to mention the customer base they lose?

Suits presume legal recourse.  It will be cheap to deal with angry letters.

[myrkul]

So the company is going to decide it's cheaper to deal with all the suits brought against it by the owners of the land they're dumping on, not to mention the customer base they lose?

That's a very reactive way of dealing with problems. The damage has already been done by the time suits are filed, and the damage can be permanent.
And yes, it can be cheaper. I know for a fact at least one company I've worked for who has done so. Calculated potential damages and decided that it would cost more to fix their product than to pay those who got hurt by it.
And lost customer base isn't such a big problem as you might think it is. Bad press can be handled. Advertising does wonders. Besides, most people don't care if someone else was hurt in the process as long as they get the goods cheaply.

And you don't have to dump it on someone else's land. You can dump it on your own. It has happened, and it probably will again. I don't see anarchy fixing this. I have a feeling it'll get worse. And suing someone for "I might get sick 20 years from now" is quite hard.

I call this the 'Fight club equation' (The main character, played by Edward Norton, is the one who does this calculation for a 'major car company') And Yes, it goes on now, and no, Anarchy wouldn't do a whole lot to change that. BUT: What it would do is remove the limitations on liability and the protections on responsibility that corporations currently enjoy. This means that each individual person who had a hand in causing the harm could be found personally liable for the damages, from the guy who made the decision all the way down to the guy who drove the truck and did the actual dumping. Puts a few more variables into that equation, huh?

But that's not all. Dumping on your own property doesn't necessarily stop the contaminants from getting onto other people's property. If I'm down stream from you, You'd be liable for my damages even if you dumped in the river on your property. Even if the contaminants never leave your property, anyone who works there and is caused harm by it would - you guessed it - would be able to extract damages from you. All of which combines to make the people making those decisions think a lot harder before dumping, or deciding not to recall faulty safety harnesses, etc.

Suits presume legal recourse.  It will be cheap to deal with angry letters.

What makes you think there would be no recourse? Binding arbitration and mediation are the cornerstones of AnCap Society.

[JA37]

I call this the 'Fight club equation' (The main character, played by Edward Norton, is the one who does this calculation for a 'major car company') And Yes, it goes on now, and no, Anarchy wouldn't do a whole lot to change that. BUT: What it would do is remove the limitations on liability and the protections on responsibility that corporations currently enjoy. This means that each individual person who had a hand in causing the harm could be found personally liable for the damages, from the guy who made the decision all the way down to the guy who drove the truck and did the actual dumping. Puts a few more variables into that equation, huh?

But that's not all. Dumping on your own property doesn't necessarily stop the contaminants from getting onto other people's property. If I'm down stream from you, You'd be liable for my damages even if you dumped in the river on your property. Even if the contaminants never leave your property, anyone who works there and is caused harm by it would - you guessed it - would be able to extract damages from you. All of which combines to make the people making those decisions think a lot harder before dumping, or deciding not to recall faulty safety harnesses, etc.

You're personally responsible today for not breaking the law, no matter what company you work in. Try the "but my boss told me to do it" defence in court any day and see how that works out for you.
Personally responsible for accidents or unintended consequences? Is that what you mean? Sounds like a great idea until you consider what a nightmare it will be to run a company. You can either not delegate anything because you might be personally responsible for something that you had nothing to do with, other than trusting someone else's good judgement. Or you have to document everything so thoroughly that you'll have nothing else to do all day, in the event that someone some day might come after you and you'll have to have your ass covered in every possible way. And personally liable for damages? I will lose my house because I hired one lazy asshat that didn't do as instructed and I didn't foresee it?

Regarding the dumping. So, it's like today then, except today there are laws to actually PREVENT you from doing the damage in the first place, instead of trying to do something after the fact. "Hey, sorry I poisoned your land. Here's some money. Go live somewhere else" sounds like a really shitty idea to me. As does getting money from lost limbs or anything else that could have been prevented by safety standards and laws.

Go watch the movie "Bananas*" about Dole for a little glimpse of what you're suggesting. The case isn't settled yet afaik, but that doesn't help those who were exposed.
http://www.bananasthemovie.com/
 

[myrkul]

Regarding the dumping. So, it's like today then, except today there are laws to actually PREVENT you from doing the damage in the first place, instead of trying to do something after the fact. "Hey, sorry I poisoned your land. Here's some money. Go live somewhere else" sounds like a really shitty idea to me. As does getting money from lost limbs or anything else that could have been prevented by safety standards and laws.

Laws do not prevent anything. They outline consequences. These consequences often do nothing to help the victim, and often do harm to them (charging them to support the person, for instance)

As to you losing your house because you hired a 'Lazy asshat', No. The lazy asshat might, but not you. At least, as long as you can find the lazy asshat. Call it incentive to do due diligence.