7 ms·

>I don't mean the cost of weaponry. I mean that you have to pay thugs well, mostly because of the inherent risk I mentioned earlier. There is also risk of massi

>I don't mean the cost of weaponry. I mean that you have to pay thugs well, mostly because of the inherent risk I mentioned earlier. There is also risk of massive retaliation which can end up causing a lot of damage to humans and property. If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today. It seems to me that your position is only maintainable if you take many questionable assumptions as a given -- here are a couple: -People are rational actors. -People will operate in an environment with good enough information available to make good decisions. (This would be tough to begin with but with overlapping rules in place this could really be a crippling burden in your purely market driven world.) Keeping just those two assumptions intact seems...improbable.

baddox 14y ago
> If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today. There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Obviously, single individuals can and do commit nearly any physical act you can conceive of. That doesn't mean that all acts are affordable to deploy on a massive scale, especially when you're worried about earning a profit. I chuckled at your assumptions, because they apply equally (or I might argue, more so) to a challenge of the desirability of government. Remember, what we call "government" is really just a bunch of people that society recognizes as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence—that's the only difference. The only change I'm proposing is for society to recognize no individuals as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence, rather than a select few. The fact that people irrational and ignorant is all the more reason to not allow any of them to become the sole legitimate purveyors of violence.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  > There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Yes, there are. Frequently over nothing at all.
  - baddox 14y ago
    Please explain. The government is the only one I can think of.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      Organized crime, drug dealers, etc. often kill people for small offenses, "honor" crimes, ratting out, snooping or just for fun. Haven't you seen any mafia/yakuza movies? Real life is much, much worse.
      - baddox 14y ago
        Drug dealers in the form you're talking about can only exist when there is drug prohibition, and it's highly unlikely that a society based on polycentric law would prohibit drugs. The economics of a lot of organized crime also can be explained government.
        ricardobeat 14y ago
        Even in a centralized state, the best, most efficient and reliable way to distribute illegal items would be total decentralization. Huge crime rings still exist though: where there is the opportunity to monopolize a resource, people will do it. That will only be exaggerated in your imagined anarcho-capitalist state. Even resources like water, energy, raw materials would be subject to monopolization, and very likely enforced through weaponry, not law. Can you see where that's going? Suppose I kill someone. Now you'll turn to a private law company to judge/punish me. I then proceed to kill that company's employees. Will you now invoke a third private law provider in their name? Who will pay for it? Even if all the law providers were mutually insured, in this arrangement, as long as I can overpower each private entity, there is no effective law.
        baddox 14y ago
        > That will only be exaggerated in your imagined anarcho-capitalist state. Why? This is an unsubstantiated claim, and I don't see why it's any truer than claiming that competition in the retail industry will be worse than a government-owned retail monopoly. > Suppose I kill someone. Now you'll turn to a private law company to judge/punish me. I then proceed to kill that company's employees. Will you now invoke a third private law provider in their name? Who will pay for it? All you're arguing here is that my proposition would not be a perfect utopian society, which I would never be foolish enough to claim. It's no different than asking "What if I kill someone, then kill the cops that show up, then kill every other law enforcement agency that shows up, then kill the entire national military?"
- clavalle 14y ago
  >Remember, what we call "government" is really just a bunch of people that society recognizes as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence—that's the only difference. Wrong. They are a group of people acting within a common framework of rules. These rules constrain their behavior, especially violent behavior. Part of this framework works to ensure no one person, small group or even large sub-group can act independently of these rules. >The only change I'm proposing is for society to recognize no individuals as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence, rather than a select few. This opens violent action to anyone who cares to engage in such behavior by whatever rules they see fit. >The fact that people irrational and ignorant is all the more reason to not allow any of them to become the sole legitimate purveyors of violence. I disagree. I think this is a fine argument for having a common set of rules for violent action agreed upon and enforced by as many people as possible. The irrational and ignorant will be held in check according to the common rules by everyone else with that responsibility.
  - baddox 14y ago
    I would argue that your characterization of government is the promise of utopia that critics of anarchy (I use that term very broadly to simply mean lack of a state) always claim the anarchists are proposing. It is simply not reflected in reality. A document empirically does not have authority over government, and voting is not a realistic way to keep government accountable to the people. An individual simply has no recourse to everyday government injustices (like taxation or prosecution for drug possession). If you insist that government represents the people, fine, but it's still tyranny of the majority/plurality. If the government doesn't represent the people, then it's government tyranny.
    - clavalle 14y ago
      >A document empirically does not have authority over government No, but people agreeing to the tenants of the document do. This would be no different in your proposal only there will be exponentially more documents (agreements) to keep track of. > and voting is not a realistic way to keep government accountable to the people. Voting is not the only way to keep government accountable (legal action being another -- revolution or threat of revolution being yet another, civil disobedience etc, etc.), but as far as a basic way to make sure government will reflects the governed's will, voting does a decent job. The evidence for this is that more extreme and direct action is relatively rare...at least in the West. >An individual simply has no recourse to everyday government injustices (like taxation or prosecution for drug possession). Taxation is an injustice? How so? I don't find it to be unjust. I get a lot of value, personally, from the taxes I pay. And drug possession? I personally don't feel that drugs should be considered contraband but many people have. Those laws are changing, however, through voting no less, as public opinion shifts. >If you insist that government represents the people, fine, but it's still tyranny of the majority/plurality. I live in the United States. It is a Republic. This means that while most laws flow from the majority and everyone must live under those laws the rights of minorities are protected. Thus tyranny is held in check. Also, minority and majority are fluid terms. They are not so much tied to an individual as a gross bloc, but to individual opinions held by those individuals regarding the laws, rules and regulations under consideration. The same person will find themselves in the majority on some issues and the minority in others. In short, individuals often don't find their will wholly repressed by the rules of the majority. Also, the rules tend to be slow to change and cannot be applied arbitrarily. This is opposed to a tyranny where the rule is absolute, arbitrarily applied and make no room for unassailable rights.

baddox 14y ago

> If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today. There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Obviously, single individuals can and do commit nearly any physical act you can conceive of. That doesn't mean that all acts are affordable to deploy on a massive scale, especially when you're worried about earning a profit. I chuckled at your assumptions, because they apply equally (or I might argue, more so) to a challenge of the desirability of government. Remember, what we call "government" is really just a bunch of people that society recognizes as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence—that's the only difference. The only change I'm proposing is for society to recognize no individuals as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence, rather than a select few. The fact that people irrational and ignorant is all the more reason to not allow any of them to become the sole legitimate purveyors of violence.

ricardobeat 14y ago
> There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Yes, there are. Frequently over nothing at all.
- baddox 14y ago
  Please explain. The government is the only one I can think of.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    Organized crime, drug dealers, etc. often kill people for small offenses, "honor" crimes, ratting out, snooping or just for fun. Haven't you seen any mafia/yakuza movies? Real life is much, much worse.
    - baddox 14y ago
      Drug dealers in the form you're talking about can only exist when there is drug prohibition, and it's highly unlikely that a society based on polycentric law would prohibit drugs. The economics of a lot of organized crime also can be explained government.
      - ricardobeat 14y ago
        Even in a centralized state, the best, most efficient and reliable way to distribute illegal items would be total decentralization. Huge crime rings still exist though: where there is the opportunity to monopolize a resource, people will do it. That will only be exaggerated in your imagined anarcho-capitalist state. Even resources like water, energy, raw materials would be subject to monopolization, and very likely enforced through weaponry, not law. Can you see where that's going? Suppose I kill someone. Now you'll turn to a private law company to judge/punish me. I then proceed to kill that company's employees. Will you now invoke a third private law provider in their name? Who will pay for it? Even if all the law providers were mutually insured, in this arrangement, as long as I can overpower each private entity, there is no effective law.
        baddox 14y ago
        > That will only be exaggerated in your imagined anarcho-capitalist state. Why? This is an unsubstantiated claim, and I don't see why it's any truer than claiming that competition in the retail industry will be worse than a government-owned retail monopoly. > Suppose I kill someone. Now you'll turn to a private law company to judge/punish me. I then proceed to kill that company's employees. Will you now invoke a third private law provider in their name? Who will pay for it? All you're arguing here is that my proposition would not be a perfect utopian society, which I would never be foolish enough to claim. It's no different than asking "What if I kill someone, then kill the cops that show up, then kill every other law enforcement agency that shows up, then kill the entire national military?"
clavalle 14y ago
>Remember, what we call "government" is really just a bunch of people that society recognizes as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence—that's the only difference. Wrong. They are a group of people acting within a common framework of rules. These rules constrain their behavior, especially violent behavior. Part of this framework works to ensure no one person, small group or even large sub-group can act independently of these rules. >The only change I'm proposing is for society to recognize no individuals as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence, rather than a select few. This opens violent action to anyone who cares to engage in such behavior by whatever rules they see fit. >The fact that people irrational and ignorant is all the more reason to not allow any of them to become the sole legitimate purveyors of violence. I disagree. I think this is a fine argument for having a common set of rules for violent action agreed upon and enforced by as many people as possible. The irrational and ignorant will be held in check according to the common rules by everyone else with that responsibility.
- baddox 14y ago
  I would argue that your characterization of government is the promise of utopia that critics of anarchy (I use that term very broadly to simply mean lack of a state) always claim the anarchists are proposing. It is simply not reflected in reality. A document empirically does not have authority over government, and voting is not a realistic way to keep government accountable to the people. An individual simply has no recourse to everyday government injustices (like taxation or prosecution for drug possession). If you insist that government represents the people, fine, but it's still tyranny of the majority/plurality. If the government doesn't represent the people, then it's government tyranny.
  - clavalle 14y ago
    >A document empirically does not have authority over government No, but people agreeing to the tenants of the document do. This would be no different in your proposal only there will be exponentially more documents (agreements) to keep track of. > and voting is not a realistic way to keep government accountable to the people. Voting is not the only way to keep government accountable (legal action being another -- revolution or threat of revolution being yet another, civil disobedience etc, etc.), but as far as a basic way to make sure government will reflects the governed's will, voting does a decent job. The evidence for this is that more extreme and direct action is relatively rare...at least in the West. >An individual simply has no recourse to everyday government injustices (like taxation or prosecution for drug possession). Taxation is an injustice? How so? I don't find it to be unjust. I get a lot of value, personally, from the taxes I pay. And drug possession? I personally don't feel that drugs should be considered contraband but many people have. Those laws are changing, however, through voting no less, as public opinion shifts. >If you insist that government represents the people, fine, but it's still tyranny of the majority/plurality. I live in the United States. It is a Republic. This means that while most laws flow from the majority and everyone must live under those laws the rights of minorities are protected. Thus tyranny is held in check. Also, minority and majority are fluid terms. They are not so much tied to an individual as a gross bloc, but to individual opinions held by those individuals regarding the laws, rules and regulations under consideration. The same person will find themselves in the majority on some issues and the minority in others. In short, individuals often don't find their will wholly repressed by the rules of the majority. Also, the rules tend to be slow to change and cannot be applied arbitrarily. This is opposed to a tyranny where the rule is absolute, arbitrarily applied and make no room for unassailable rights.