Anarcho-capitalism, Monopolies, Private dictatorships

[tomcollins]

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.

True, everybody would like to live in a peaceful society, with no gun or any kind other kind of violence.

But no at any price.  At some point if the oligopoly of violence asks too much to the people it is supposed to protect, then individuals get weapons and reorganize distribution of force.

So if we have to step towards a Mad Max or Clint Eastwood society in order to get rid of the scumbags who spoil every single inch of freedom we desire, be it.

The other thing is, the most violent gangs and criminals absolutely dwarf the level of violence that the state has been able to get away with.  Look at how many people have been outright murdered by states.  Compare that to all regular criminals in history, including gangs.  It's not even a close comparison.

While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people.  I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...

[chickenado]

Monopolies are only a bad thing in a propretarian economy, because there they often exclude people from using capital in a more efficient way than the owner of that capital.

In a non-propretarian economy monopolies can be desireable.  One example is open-source software. Too many forks can be detrimental. It's better if everyone just sticks to ONE standard.

Bitcoin too could become a monopoly, even if nobody really owns or controls the Bitcoin protocol.  IMO that would be superior to several competing block chains.

[sirius]

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Free competition doesn't mean that everyone is a producer of the good.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

You don't want to worry about the complex process how the materials for your computer are gathered from all over the world, turned into components, assembled and finally delivered to you. You don't need to, you just buy it. Granting a violently enforced monopoly to computer production would ruin the industry just like state has ruined justice.

[tomcollins]

Monopolies are only a bad thing in a propretarian economy, because there they often exclude people from using capital in a more efficient way than the owner of that capital.

In a non-propretarian economy monopolies can be desireable.  One example is open-source software. Too many forks can be detrimental. It's better if everyone just sticks to ONE standard.

Bitcoin too could become a monopoly, even if nobody really owns or controls the Bitcoin protocol.  IMO that would be superior to several competing block chains.

But if the main fork goes down a bad path, then forks become desirable.  If there was a critical problem in the Bitcoin protocol or an improvement to be made, a fork would be a good thing.  But no one is forced to use any individual fork, so whatever is best will tend to win out.  But sometimes there is room for forks.  See: OpenOffice.

[grondilu]

While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people.  I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...

Agreed.  Local violence used by individuals, with their own means, is certainly less dangerous than global scale industrialised violence from States, financed with taxation.

States have used tax money to design nuclear bombs, do genocides and so many terrible stuffs.  In many ways, twentieth century history is much scarier than any MadMax movie.

On one hand you have states:



And on the other hand you have anarcho-capitalistic icones:




Now, is anarcho-capitalism really scarier ?

[tomcollins]

While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people.  I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...

Agreed.  Local violence used by individuals, with their own means, is certainly less dangerous than global scale industrialised violence from States, financed with taxation.

States have used taxed money to design nuclear bombs, to do genocides and so many terrible stuffs.  In many ways, twentieth century history is much scarier than any MadMax movie.

On one hand you have states:

And it comes down to what the people are willing to accept.  If you have a culture that accepts violence, you end up with a lot of violence.  If you centralize power, it makes it that much easier to make even more violence, and harder to stop.  If people do not accept violence, then a centralized system it still is hard to stop, but at least it can be possible.  It is virtually impossible to make it very far with violence.

[no to the gold cult]

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.

True, everybody would like to live in a peaceful society, with no gun or any kind other kind of violence.

But no at any price.  At some point if the oligopoly of violence asks too much to the people it is supposed to protect, then individuals get weapons and reorganize distribution of force.

So if we have to step towards a Mad Max or Clint Eastwood society in order to get rid of the scumbags who spoil every single inch of freedom we desire, be it.

The other thing is, the most violent gangs and criminals absolutely dwarf the level of violence that the state has been able to get away with.  Look at how many people have been outright murdered by states.  Compare that to all regular criminals in history, including gangs.  It's not even a close comparison.

While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people.  I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...

But you will get states anyway. Anarcho-Capitalists have a revolution or something, and society is delivered into a perfect competition of violence.

Though Anarcho-Capitalists are peace loving and think everyone should avoid violence, some people out there don't give a fuck.

Weeks past, bands form, after a few months or years an oligopoly of violence forms. After a few decades... a vast monopoly of violence has formed, and makes sure everyone plays nice. It is essentially a state.

What's the difference from this state that has arisen after an anarcho-capitalist revolution and a subsequently perfectly competitive period of violent turmoil, and the states of today? (at least in the West, many parts of the world are still dealing with unrepresentative state power)

The states today are subject to a long history of mistakes and struggles where state power went massively wrong, had to be grappled with by the people, revolutionized and laws amended, made war for and made war against... movements raised and imperialisms rolled back, workers empowered and sections given the vote... until finally today we have.... Liberal Democracy. Oh well, a long way to go yet.

And the post anarcho-revolutionary state? Well, it gets to start from scratch, starting with the rise of some guy whose second name may as well be Caesar or Charlemagne or something and ending with some guy who may as well be called Mao, or Adolf, or Nixon. All the mistakes and horrors of centuries from scratch.

I say let's evolve the states and fuck Year One, I say let's not smash it all down and start again, I say modify what we have. Improve it, it's worth fighting for and that's why it exists in the first place. There will always be a State, we should take responsibility for the things instead of pretending we owe nothing to history. We're products of history, sick and demented as it is.

The Koch Brothers et al are totally happy for you to throw your hands up in frustration and devote yourself to various solipsist delusions like children that have thrown their toys from the pram. Meanwhile untold millions that have fought and died for the services that the state now render us (where it's previous concerns were only for the welfare of kings and nobles) now roll in their graves. I'm against this.

[wumpus]

On one hand you have states:
...
And on the other hand you have anarcho-capitalistic icones:
...

Now, is anarcho-capitalism really scarier ?

Never looked at it in this way, but you do have a point.

[grondilu]

Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence.

Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever.

If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.

True, everybody would like to live in a peaceful society, with no gun or any kind other kind of violence.

But no at any price.  At some point if the oligopoly of violence asks too much to the people it is supposed to protect, then individuals get weapons and reorganize distribution of force.

So if we have to step towards a Mad Max or Clint Eastwood society in order to get rid of the scumbags who spoil every single inch of freedom we desire, be it.

The other thing is, the most violent gangs and criminals absolutely dwarf the level of violence that the state has been able to get away with.  Look at how many people have been outright murdered by states.  Compare that to all regular criminals in history, including gangs.  It's not even a close comparison.

While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people.  I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...

But you will get states anyway. Anarcho-Capitalists have a revolution or something, and society is delivered into a perfect competition of violence.

Though Anarcho-Capitalists are peace loving and think everyone should avoid violence, some people out there don't give a fuck.

Weeks past, bands form, after a few months or years an oligopoly of violence forms. After a few decades... a vast monopoly of violence has formed, and makes sure everyone plays nice. It is essentially a state.

What's the difference from this state that has arisen after an anarcho-capitalist revolution and a subsequently perfectly competitive period of violent turmoil and the states of the West today?

The states today are subject to a long history of mistakes and struggles where state power went massively worong, had to be grappled with by the people, revolutionized and amended, made war for and made war against... movements made and imperialisms rolled back, workers empowered and sections given the vote... until finally today we have.... Liberal Democracy. Oh well, a long way to go yet.

And the post anarcho-revolutionary state? Well, it gets to start from scratch, starting with the rise of some guy whose second name may as well be Ceasar or Charlamagne or something and ending withy some guy may as well be called Mao, or Adolf, or Nixon. All the mistakes and horrors of centuries from scratch.

I say let's evolve the states and fuck Year One, I say let's not smash it all down and start again, I say modify what we have. Improve it, it's worth fighting for and that's why it exists in the first place. There will always be a state, we should take responsibility for it.

That's where the debate gets interesting.  I'll write more about that later.

[tomcollins]

But you will get states anyway. Anarcho-Capitalists have a revolution or something, and society is delivered into a perfect competition of violence.

Perhaps people will get states.  If you destroyed every church, would religion go away?  Of course not.  You need to actually convince people not to be religious for it to be meaningful.  The state is just another religion.  Can you convince enough people?  Maybe, maybe not.

Though Anarcho-Capitalists are peace loving and think everyone should avoid violence, some people out there don't give a fuck.

And if those people are in the minority, life will not be pleasant for them.  If they are in the majority, then they will get away with it.

Weeks past, bands form, after a few months or years an oligopoly of violence forms. After a few decades... a vast monopoly of violence has formed, and makes sure everyone plays nice. It is essentially a state.

Again, tear down churches, new churches will be built.  Convince people to abandon religion, and they will not.

What's the difference from this state that has arisen after an anarcho-capitalist revolution and a subsequently perfectly competitive period of violent turmoil, and the states of today? (at least in the West, many parts of the world are still dealing with unrepresentative state power)

The states today are subject to a long history of mistakes and struggles where state power went massively wrong, had to be grappled with by the people, revolutionized and laws amended, made war for and made war against... movements raised and imperialisms rolled back, workers empowered and sections given the vote... until finally today we have.... Liberal Democracy. Oh well, a long way to go yet.

And the post anarcho-revolutionary state? Well, it gets to start from scratch, starting with the rise of some guy whose second name may as well be Caesar or Charlemagne or something and ending with some guy who may as well be called Mao, or Adolf, or Nixon. All the mistakes and horrors of centuries from scratch.

Again, see above.  Yes, if people reject violence on the whole, everyone will laugh at the next Caesar or Charlemagne.  If people support violence, then of course they will return.

I say let's evolve the states and fuck Year One, I say let's not smash it all down and start again, I say modify what we have. Improve it, it's worth fighting for and that's why it exists in the first place. There will always be a State, we should take responsibility for the things instead of pretending we owe nothing to history. We're products of history, sick and demented as it is.

The Koch Brothers et al are totally happy for you to throw your hands up in frustration and devote yourself to various solipsist delusions like children that have thrown their toys from the pram. Meanwhile untold millions that have fought and died for the services that the state now render us (where it's previous concerns were only for the welfare of kings and nobles) now roll in their graves. I'm against this.

While the pragmatic belief that we cannot convince people may be true, it won't stop me from trying.  The Koch brothers, lol, like they support anarchy.  They just want *their* version of the state.

Fought and died for the services the state now render us?  If someone was stupid enough to get themselves killed so I could get a monopoly of service from someone, let them roll in their graves.  I do support those who died to *keep* a monopoly of power from interfering in our lives, though.

But you do not need to convince everyone.  You just need to convince a few people.  They can convince a few more.  Eventually it will grow, or it will not.  Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

But there is no harm at all in teaching people that violence is wrong, even when its done by people with special uniforms.

[BitterTea]

I do not agree with the assumption that anarchy must devolve into statism.

1) A failed state is chaos, not anarchy.
2) A state derives its power from the consent of the people.
3) If that consent is withdrawn, the state has no power.
4) If anarchy provides a better life for people, they will protect it.

So, my plan is to attempt to convince as many people as I can that anarchy is preferable to statism. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, though I am cautiously optimistic that we'll see some small steps in that direction, especially due to the internet and (perhaps) Bitcoin. All that is required is a critical mass of individuals to ignore the state, and it will cease to have any power at all. There are many ways which an anarchy might protect itself from the aggression of other states - the use of miliatias, private defense organizations, assassination politics, etc.

[BitterTea]

Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

Satoshi? Bitcoin?

[kiba]

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

[tomcollins]

Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

Satoshi? Bitcoin?

I don't know enough about Satoshi to know his motivations, but it could be an example.

[tomcollins]

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

I disagree.  5 years ago, I was "lol anarchocapitalists'.

[BitterTea]

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

Kiba,

I appreciate that you are ideologically agnostic, but these debates such as these do have a purpose. As a Voluntaryist, this is one of the few methods available to me to affect change. I'll let the copypasta do the talking for me...

Voluntaryism is at once an end, a means, and an insight. It signifies the goal of an all voluntary society, one in which all interaction between individuals is based on voluntary exchange, and thus calls for the abolition of the State. Voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists recognize that government rests on mass acquiescence (the voluntaryist insight), they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is for the people at large to withdraw their cooperation. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, individual civil disobedience, and group nonviolent resistance to the State. Since voluntaryists see a direct connection between the means they use and the end they seek, they realize that only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society. People cannot be coerced into being free. The very goal of an all voluntary society suggests its own means. The voluntaryist insight provides the only logical and consistent way of achieving liberty and abolishing the State.

[tomcollins]

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

Kiba,

I appreciate that you are ideologically agnostic, but these debates such as these do have a purpose. As a Voluntaryist, this is one of the few methods available to me to affect change. I'll let the copypasta do the talking for me...

Voluntaryism is at once an end, a means, and an insight. It signifies the goal of an all voluntary society, one in which all interaction between individuals is based on voluntary exchange, and thus calls for the abolition of the State. Voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists recognize that government rests on mass acquiescence (the voluntaryist insight), they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is for the people at large to withdraw their cooperation. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, individual civil disobedience, and group nonviolent resistance to the State. Since voluntaryists see a direct connection between the means they use and the end they seek, they realize that only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society. People cannot be coerced into being free. The very goal of an all voluntary society suggests its own means. The voluntaryist insight provides the only logical and consistent way of achieving liberty and abolishing the State.

The other interesting thing is, although the person you are arguing with rarely changes his position, people reading threads DO change their positions more.

[BitterTea]

The other interesting thing is, although the person you are arguing with rarely changes his position, people reading threads DO change their positions more.

Exactly! Debates are about putting forth arguments that are convincing to the audience, not the debaters.

[kiba]

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

[BitterTea]

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

I think you're taking the Less Wrong article a little too literally, and in fact it seems to me that you are committing the same error of which it is warning. Your Blue/Green position is that rational debate is impossible. So you jump into otherwise somewhat rational debates and state that rational debate is not possible. Why not just go read something else instead?

If you truly think rational debate is impossible, you shouldn't be attempting to convince us so.