How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[Mike Christ]

as far as public infrastructure, i think private companies will create roads.. but then you'd have toll roads everywhere. and since men are not created equal, one guy might climb to the top of the ladder and own all the roads. what happens then, when he charges you exorbitant fees?

That's a terrible business model   Nobody would drive if you charged to drive on them, and then how would businesses get consumers?  The point of roads is to lead to business, not to charge for the privilege.

well how else would the people who create the roads make money?

Think about it   Who profits from there being roads?  Who has the greatest incentive to get them built?

[u9y42]

im curious as to how that would work? how would roads be created then, if no one owned them? who'd put the money out to get them built? if businesses pooled their money together to build roads, they would start complaining if someone who did not use any of their services or goods used the roads.. because that'd be freeloading.

Well, the people themselves did all that. And that's not how it would work, but rather how it did work. Read up on it (or watch the documentary)... it seems like you would be surprised at what people can do, if they put their mind to it.

[hawkeye]

as far as public infrastructure, i think private companies will create roads.. but then you'd have toll roads everywhere. and since men are not created equal, one guy might climb to the top of the ladder and own all the roads. what happens then, when he charges you exorbitant fees?

I've already pointed out why there wouldn't be toll roads everywhere.  In fact, out of all the business models available for roads it seems like the worst one available to me.  But then I am looking at it from a business standpoint.    Not a position where I'm freaking out about the possibility of "no govt, no roads".

If you have a road you want to encourage throughput on it.  Otherwise, what's the point?

im curious as to how that would work? how would roads be created then, if no one owned them? who'd put the money out to get them built? if businesses pooled their money together to build roads, they would start complaining if someone who did not use any of their services or goods used the roads.. because that'd be freeloading.

Like the way that shopping centres which maintain the roads and parking spaces in their car park complain about freeloaders, you mean?

It doesn't matter to them because the costs of maintaining them are so small compared to the profits they make.  They don't want to scare away potential future customers by complaining about the "freeloaders".

[hawkeye]

i guess you agree with me then, because i think if 1 country were to go anarchistic (and they are surrounded by state-run governments), an external force (neighboring country) would come in and invade them.. which has happened in the past. i don't think just arming every man and woman with a gun is going to get the job done.

Well, I've been looking at the wars of the past few decades fought by the big powers, who have the biggest armies and biggest budgets ever and it looks to me like the big guys are consistently losing to small, ragtag, well-armed people of these countries.

There's a famous quote a Japanese military person remarked about the possibility of invading America in WW2.  He said it wasn't worth it because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.  That it would be impossible to hold.  I'm paraphrasing but it was something like that.

[Kail]

I thought about this question when it comes to Anarchy.

How long would it take for majority to adapt to anarchy, that is start to follow rational non-aggresive principles. And majority of the destructive forces to be forced out of market by consumer choise?

That is if we were to start now?

On mobile so can't embed sorry.
http://youtu.be/NKERC6F7mSM

Whitest kids you know - anarchy.

I think anarchy is not the answer, I think a change of the people that we have in govt from millionaires to actual politics, sciences and social science majors in the office.... People who actually have a clue instead of puppets being fingered by corporate interests.

And anything over 15% in taxes is ridiculous.

[Mike Christ]

I think anarchy is not the answer, I think a change of the people that we have in govt from millionaires to actual politics, sciences and social science majors in the office.... People who actually have a clue instead of puppets being fingered by corporate interests.

If you had the power to help that, you'd be an anarchist   You don't get the state without the corruption, sorry.  It's either or.

[beetcoin]

as far as public infrastructure, i think private companies will create roads.. but then you'd have toll roads everywhere. and since men are not created equal, one guy might climb to the top of the ladder and own all the roads. what happens then, when he charges you exorbitant fees?

I've already pointed out why there wouldn't be toll roads everywhere.  In fact, out of all the business models available for roads it seems like the worst one available to me.  But then I am looking at it from a business standpoint.    Not a position where I'm freaking out about the possibility of "no govt, no roads".

If you have a road you want to encourage throughput on it.  Otherwise, what's the point?

im curious as to how that would work? how would roads be created then, if no one owned them? who'd put the money out to get them built? if businesses pooled their money together to build roads, they would start complaining if someone who did not use any of their services or goods used the roads.. because that'd be freeloading.

Like the way that shopping centres which maintain the roads and parking spaces in their car park complain about freeloaders, you mean?

It doesn't matter to them because the costs of maintaining them are so small compared to the profits they make.  They don't want to scare away potential future customers by complaining about the "freeloaders".

i didn't read why you think toll roads wouldn't be everywhere.

and also, who builds the highways between towns/cities? the businesses too? so the amount they want to contribute is voluntary? someone's going to feel like a party is not paying their fair share, and there would be dischord. how would that get settled?

i don't get how you got to the "costs are so small compared to the profits they make." road maintenance is probably not cheap.

ancient tribal groups were anarchistic, and they killed/dominated each other until there was one ruler. great nations came as a result.

[Mike Christ]

someone's going to feel like a party is not paying their fair share, and there would be dischord. how would that get settled?

The party feeling discord makes it public that the persons in question aren't putting in their fair share.  People respond accordingly; if they care, the persons get a bad rep, and if they don't care, the persons don't.  If you get a bad rep, it gets harder to function around people.  If you get a good rep, it gets easier.

[ErisDiscordia]

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://www.silentconspiracy.net/2013/11/how-to-fix-society/

[deisik]

For protection against people with extraordinarily low time preference.

Didn't quite get what you mean here, but aren't these wicked people the same bad guys that the state should protect us, good boys, from?

But no im not talking about run of the mill "bad guys". most bad guys are self interested and care about the future. in a free society you wouldnt need to purchase protection from them because they can be controlled through threats of social ostracism.

What prevents them from being controlled through threats of social ostracism right now? Do states explicitly prohibit ostracism or make you keep connections with bad guys? Unless you provide strong evidence confirming your position, I would think there is nothing that would constrain my desire to stay away from the dregs of society. And don't say that those bad guys are government themselves (this would make your argument circular)...

[deisik]

who you need physical protection from are people who are both "bad guys" but also live only in the moment and dont care at all about the future. these people can not be controlled through threats of ostracism. these people have to be physically subdued while they are in the process of rampaging. fortunately this is a relatively small cross section so protecting yourself from such a small group of people would be relatively inexpensive, also you could just chose to carry a firearm instead of buying protection.

What are you going to do with them, provided they don't get to killing anybody? Should they be shot in sight, put to jail, sent to reservations or left alone really? Would you have to use violence towards thieves, for example? In short, will there be a judiciary, penitentiary and law enforcing systems, or you would rather stick to lynch law alone without official trial according to the established order?

[deisik]

all six of one and half a dozen of the other

also i just cant let this slide. what you are saying here is that a situation where you have no choice of who to pay and the person you pay says "either pay us Y amount of money or else we will hurt you" is exactly the same situation as being able to chose to pay any one of a thousand agencies where the agency you chose says "either pay us amount Y or else someone other than us may hurt you." Is what i quoted up there is you claiming that these are functionally identical situations? i just want to be clear on that point.

It's very simple really. I just don't believe that in the situation you describe here you will actually have that option of free choosing between a thousand agencies. In some weaker states, you often have to pay local criminal gangs besides officially established taxes so that they would just leave you alone. Your situation could be even worse than that if it ever came to reality, because you might actually end up paying many "agencies" ab invito...

[hawkeye]

i didn't read why you think toll roads wouldn't be everywhere.

Oh sorry, it was actually in another thread, I got mixed up.  Here it is

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=343866.msg3846210#msg3846210

and also, who builds the highways between towns/cities? the businesses too? so the amount they want to contribute is voluntary? someone's going to feel like a party is not paying their fair share, and there would be dischord. how would that get settled?

i don't get how you got to the "costs are so small compared to the profits they make." road maintenance is probably not cheap.

ancient tribal groups were anarchistic, and they killed/dominated each other until there was one ruler. great nations came as a result.

Highways between towns, assuming there is enough traffic to justify it, could be funded in various ways.  Maybe the big transportation companies could do it to ensure their goods get where they want.  Another example of profits exceeding maintenance costs.  They could be funded by advertising.  Or the big roads themselves could be some form of toll road if nothing else.    These are just a few things that I can think of.  I'm not in the business of roads so there is probably some idea that I am not even thinking of.  

I think road maintenance is probably a lot cheaper without all the state bureaucracy costs.  And the fact that it is a monopoly so let's face it, those road guys don't have to put too much effort in like any public service department.  

I don't know about where you live but here they dig up perfectly good roads and repave them just to make sure they use their budget for the year so that the budget isn't cut the next year.  This is what happens when you have perverse incentives.  

[deisik]

Why should I bind myself in any way by listing any laws? When you interact with people you rely primarily on your instincts, not on however short a list of laws. Our social nature has already given us everything to talk or do things with other people. In fact, these laws you refer to are nothing more than just a formal expression of that social nature of humans...

Thanks. You just agreed with me.

codified law is unnecessary in non defective humans. Not much you can do about psychopaths except to avoid them and defend yourself where the need arises.

But governments absolutely NEED psychopaths in order to function. Thus the need for laws.

Yes, laws are needed to defend you from such psychopaths as well. And to defend them in some degree from lawlessness and outrage. That's why we need codified law as well as trials and lawyers. Even if we don't need written laws to do things with other people, we need law when we do things to other people...

[deisik]

Now you confirm in your own words that anarchy as you see it doesn't in fact differ very much from what state actually is all about. If we clear away the verbal husks of what you say here, we necessarily come to a system where majority would suppress minority in any possible way... How's that different from what state does?

An undisputed right of exit. No anarchist, whether in a commune or walking the earth, would claim you as his property. No government, ever, has failed to do so.

Right? Are you kidding?

I hoped you would read and understand what I had written about the doublespeak you are using again here. But, it seems, to no avail. Why should I ever search for an exit if I am in my own right? So, minority under your rule would just have to walk away somewhere. Is this what you mean by an undisputed right of exit? And you have the right to emigrate, so government doesn't claim you as its property, either publicly or implicitly (I'm not speaking about slave states here for evident reasons). Your point is void...

[deisik]

Oh noes! I can't possibly imagine living in a world with no government where certain bad people would no doubt try to steal from me and hurt me to help themselves! So therefore, it's necessary to submit to certain bad people who are the government who steal from me and hurt me to help themselves!

Statism = Logical failure

It's you who logically failed here. You pay some bad guys and they defend you from other bad guys out there. Because of the economy of scale, you actually end up paying much less than you would have to pay without a state behind you. So your imagination wasn't actually deceiving you...

Up to this point I thought you were serious.

Look at the tax rates. LOOK AT THEM. There is no way in hell it would ever cost me that much to defend myself, my family, and my property. If I blew off a thousand rounds a day in practice and installed prison level security, it wouldn't cost that much.

I don't deem it purposeful to answer seriously to posts that are nothing more than sheer trolling. You missed the real culprit here

Your taxes are used in a myriad other ways (pensions, health service, utilities, roads, etc), it is strange that you forget to mention such things or just hope that I would miss them. It is suicidal for any government to tax more than 50% of your total income (actually the optimal number is far below this). You would lose incentive to work if they would require more under normal conditions...

[deisik]

It's you who logically failed here. You pay some bad guys and they defend you from other bad guys out there. Because of the economy of scale, you actually end up paying much less than you would have to pay without a state behind you. So your imagination wasn't actually deceiving you...

You clearly have no idea how much value is taken from you in the multitude of ways that the government takes value from you, and greatly overestimate the cost of defending yourself in a free society.

I have already answered almost the same assertion in my previous post... If you don't believe me, Google is your friend, go search for the Laffer Curve. I'm afraid that "in a free society" you will often have to give everything you possess and sometimes even your life. I have a strong feeling that anarchy proponents here have never seen what real life may look like...

[ErisDiscordia]

I have often wondered about what motivates people to support the existence of the state. Not in a "it is necessary, but I would welcome it if it wasn't" way, but in a "I don't want it to be unnecessary" sort of way. As I search for the answer, over and over again I find this:

I'm afraid that "in a free society" you will often have to give everything you possess and sometimes even your life. I have a strong feeling that anarchy proponents here have never seen what real life may look like...

REAL LIFE.

The assumption, that the bearer of said opinions knows what is REAL. What real life looks like. What human nature really is. They know these things. Here come the generalizations, but I feel that it's mostly the same type of personality. Someone, who views himself as a rational realist, assessing the cold hard facts of how human nature works and how life really works and not turning away from the harsh truths. Unlike those starry eyed dreamers and idealists. It's a way of "one-upmanship", a way to feel superior and validated. Hey, I'm not judging, we all do these things in various ways

What strikes me as weird about this stance is the refusal to acknowledge a blatant problem in this approach: if it is true and life is nasty, brutish and short and human nature is selfish, violent and treacherous, how is the creation of an institution with the legal monopoly of initiating force not going to make things any worse? The selfish and treacherous people you need protecting against will suddenly turn into benevolent protectors, as soon as you give them a monopoly on force?? I don't see any evidence to support that. I do see lots of evidence pointing to the contrary direction: that said monopoly on force tends to attract the sort of people who are the most dangerous to others when in power, it corrupts them further and even corrupts the occasional honest idealist finding themselves there.

[deisik]

What strikes me as weird about this stance is the refusal to acknowledge a blatant problem in this approach: if it is true and life is nasty, brutish and short and human nature is selfish, violent and treacherous, how is the creation of an institution with the legal monopoly of initiating force not going to make things any worse? The selfish and treacherous people you need protecting against will suddenly turn into benevolent protectors, as soon as you give them a monopoly on force?? I don't see any evidence to support that. I do see lots of evidence pointing to the contrary direction: that said monopoly on force tends to attract the sort of people who are the most dangerous to others when in power, it corrupts them further and even corrupts the occasional honest idealist finding themselves there.

Very simple really, just a few words. Because it becomes profitable. When you don't have a monopoly of power you have to compete with someone else for it, and so you are predetermined by your position (liable to failure) to strip everyone around you of everything they may happen to have. Almost the same happens when warfare begins (external competition for power), government begins plundering their own population in an effort to retain the power with any means available. When nothing threatens the monopoly of power, it becomes profitable in the long run to turn into "benevolent protectors"

I think no one here idealizes state...

[ErisDiscordia]

What strikes me as weird about this stance is the refusal to acknowledge a blatant problem in this approach: if it is true and life is nasty, brutish and short and human nature is selfish, violent and treacherous, how is the creation of an institution with the legal monopoly of initiating force not going to make things any worse? The selfish and treacherous people you need protecting against will suddenly turn into benevolent protectors, as soon as you give them a monopoly on force?? I don't see any evidence to support that. I do see lots of evidence pointing to the contrary direction: that said monopoly on force tends to attract the sort of people who are the most dangerous to others when in power, it corrupts them further and even corrupts the occasional honest idealist finding themselves there.

Very simple really, just a few words. Because it becomes profitable. When you don't have a monopoly of power you have to compete with someone else for it, and so you are predetermined by your position (liable to failure) to strip everyone around you of everything they may happen to have. Almost the same happens when warfare begins (external competition for power), government begins plundering their own population in an effort to retain the power with any means available. When nothing threatens the monopoly of power, it becomes profitable in the long run to turn into "benevolent protectors"

I think no one here idealizes state...

Thanks for your reply. I think I see your point.

Quite a scary conclusion (bolded) you're reaching there. We are reduced to hoping, that the entities in power recognize this and indeed turn into benevolent protectors. Also there are other factors, besides external threats, which might turn them towards looting their citizens, like greed, corruption, lust for power & wealth etc.

While I agree, that the monopolization of power is most profitable (for those in power), I would imagine that better cost-effectiveness (if that would be what we're really after) would be achieved through competition.