6 ms·

And who enforces the value of Gold, or Silver, or Bitcoin? And why is it impossible to enforce property rights without a monopolistic protection service, which

by snitko 13y ago

And who enforces the value of Gold, or Silver, or Bitcoin? And why is it impossible to enforce property rights without a monopolistic protection service, which is government police force? >Why do you believe the entire society you know and like will run with government cut out? Why do you believe the demand for safety, property rights and anything else government currently provides, would vanish in the absence of government? And why do you believe the market cannot satisfy this demand?

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Property rights are enforced through violence, ultimately. Whatever group provides the property rights is a government. To govern is to create rights, to create rights is to govern. Even if it's you with a shotgun next to your nation state of a cabin in the woods.
- snitko 13y ago
  The point is, that when it's me with a shotgun or a hired private protection agency, we enforce property rights at the expense of property owners. When it's government, it takes someone else's money by force to provide this service. Thus, with government, you have double violence and a lot less accountability, because you simply can't stop paying if you dislike the service.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The point is, that when it's me with a shotgun or a hired private protection agency, we enforce property rights at the expense of property owners. Same thing with the government. > you simply can't stop paying if you dislike the service. You can do that to governments, too. Of course, many governmens don't like it if you do that, and retaliate. Of course, individual actors who assume defense of their own property rights and become governments (whether they acknowledge the name or not) by getting others to sign on with them also do that, and, unlike modern representative governments, tend not to have even theoretically available constraints to limit the extent of their retaliation.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Of course you can stop paying the IRS if you dislike the service. You just end up in jail or with your wages garnished. Similarly, if you dislike the service of your private protection agency (which is still a government, just not monopolistic), then if you stop paying you'll just end up dead, unless you can pay for equivalent protection from someone else. This is how mafia protection works, for example. Currently, we don't kill people for running out of money, and debtor's prisons are illegal. Furthermore, in such a system if you have more money than the guy next to you, you can pay to have more rights than the guy next to you. A philosophy of a la carte rights to the highest bidder is absolutely materialistic and denies the fundamental equality of all humans. Why revert to being animals? Why do you believe that some humans are more valuable than other humans? Yes, abuse of government authority is unpleasant, but if like me you find it distasteful that the US can abuse its economic power to trample people in other nations around the world, how do you tolerate the idea of billionaires doing whatever the hell they please, including bribing all the "private protection agencies" of the people that get in their way? All that happens in the canonical libertarian ideal is that there are even less restrictions on the behavior of the very rich than we have today.
    - snitko 13y ago
      Thanks, I think your questions are important, because those are the exact questions people often ask when presented the idea of private protection agencies and other libertarian ideas. So I'd like to address them and maybe try to demonstrate that those ideas would indeed work (so please let me know if I managed to convince you at least a little bit). >Similarly, if you dislike the service of your private protection agency (which is still a government, just not monopolistic), then if you stop paying you'll just end up dead, unless you can pay for equivalent protection from someone else. So, at the very least I already have a choice between one protection agency and another. If one promises to kill me if I cancel my subscription, I simply go to another agency that will be happy to have my money and ask them to protect me against the one I dislike. Because both agencies are in the business to make money, they realize that violence is more expensive and nothing happens. Then people would usually say "But what if two agencies form a cartel"? Well, in that case, nothing really prevents a third agency to spring up as a competition and take customers away. Historically, cartels break down very fast without any intervention because one of the cartel members usually breaks the rules or an outside competitor emerges. Also, intimidating even one customer because he decides to unsubscribe is very likely to cause a chain reaction where a company simply loses its business. A cartel, though, is still a better situation than a government. If a cartel decides to kill or detain anyone who's not paying, it cannot actually claim, like government does, that it's a legitimate action, because people would take it for what it is - a violent action by a criminal gang. A great majority of people would be very likely to at least stop paying the cartel as soon as they realize it doesn't do them any good and some violent resistance is also very likely. A cartel is in the business of making money, thus it is in its interest to make more money and attract more customers. They can't print money, nor can they steal without losing a lot of customers. >if like me you find it distasteful that the US can abuse its economic power to trample people in other nations around the world, how do you tolerate the idea of billionaires doing whatever the hell they please Billionaires can't really do what they please to the extent a government can. First of all, any violence that is likely to happen would be paid for out of this billionaires pockets. Governments, on the other hand, don't pay for violence. They steal money from taxpayers, then use these money to finance wars, steal more money and indoctrinate people, convincing them that what they do is not actually theft. I don't really see rich people starting wars or intimidating other people. Why? Because it's a costly activity. Creating actual value is profitable. Inducing violence to steal money is only profitable when you can steal more than you spend in the long run.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
The market doesn't exist without property titles.
- snitko 13y ago
  Your misconception is that it's government who creates property titles. That's not true at all. Even in the animal world, territorial rights are enforced by animals themselves or groups of animals. They don't have any kind of government. Now what government does is it provides a service of protecting that property. Indeed, it's much better than having to protect your own property yourself all the time, but it's much worse than hiring private protection agencies. Two reasons: 1) you can't stop paying for the government service if you dislike it 2) customers who may need various levels of protection cannot subscribe to various service plans, thus some customers get inadequate levels or protection, while some subsidize protection of others. Again, enforcing property rights != government. Government is just one way of doing it.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Your misconception is that it's government who creates property titles. Because it is. > Even in the animal world, territorial rights are enforced by animals themselves or groups of animals. The power of the each individual, or collaborating group, to claim as much territory as they can effectively defend, independent of who held it before, is pretty much the opposite of what "property" and "property titles" are. > Now what government does is it provides a service of protecting that property. Indeed, it's much better than having to protect your own property yourself all the time, but it's much worse than hiring private protection agencies. Two reasons: 1) you can't stop paying for the government service if you dislike it Yes, you can. Now, there may be negative consequences to this, but, in the absence of a government to constrain the action of "private protection agencies" (which are, de facto, governments) exercising force to defend property, the same can be expected. In fact, where such private protection agencies have played a major role in protecting property (with or without the consent of whatever de jure government nominally operated in the area), retaliation against those who attempt to opt-out of their "protection" has been a frequent feature of their operation. > 2) customers who may need various levels of protection cannot subscribe to various service plans, thus some customers get inadequate levels or protection, while some subsidize protection of others. I find it interesting that you posit "the rich can't buy better protection of their property rights than the poor" as a problem with government, but I think you'll find considerable disagreement on two grounds with that claim: * First, disagreement that the absence of equal protection is a problem, and * Second, disagreement that the absence of an ability for the rich to buy better protection is, in fact, a feature of government in the real world (however much it might be in some theoretical models.)

by snitko 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago

Property rights are enforced through violence, ultimately. Whatever group provides the property rights is a government. To govern is to create rights, to create rights is to govern. Even if it's you with a shotgun next to your nation state of a cabin in the woods.

snitko 13y ago
The point is, that when it's me with a shotgun or a hired private protection agency, we enforce property rights at the expense of property owners. When it's government, it takes someone else's money by force to provide this service. Thus, with government, you have double violence and a lot less accountability, because you simply can't stop paying if you dislike the service.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The point is, that when it's me with a shotgun or a hired private protection agency, we enforce property rights at the expense of property owners. Same thing with the government. > you simply can't stop paying if you dislike the service. You can do that to governments, too. Of course, many governmens don't like it if you do that, and retaliate. Of course, individual actors who assume defense of their own property rights and become governments (whether they acknowledge the name or not) by getting others to sign on with them also do that, and, unlike modern representative governments, tend not to have even theoretically available constraints to limit the extent of their retaliation.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Of course you can stop paying the IRS if you dislike the service. You just end up in jail or with your wages garnished. Similarly, if you dislike the service of your private protection agency (which is still a government, just not monopolistic), then if you stop paying you'll just end up dead, unless you can pay for equivalent protection from someone else. This is how mafia protection works, for example. Currently, we don't kill people for running out of money, and debtor's prisons are illegal. Furthermore, in such a system if you have more money than the guy next to you, you can pay to have more rights than the guy next to you. A philosophy of a la carte rights to the highest bidder is absolutely materialistic and denies the fundamental equality of all humans. Why revert to being animals? Why do you believe that some humans are more valuable than other humans? Yes, abuse of government authority is unpleasant, but if like me you find it distasteful that the US can abuse its economic power to trample people in other nations around the world, how do you tolerate the idea of billionaires doing whatever the hell they please, including bribing all the "private protection agencies" of the people that get in their way? All that happens in the canonical libertarian ideal is that there are even less restrictions on the behavior of the very rich than we have today.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Thanks, I think your questions are important, because those are the exact questions people often ask when presented the idea of private protection agencies and other libertarian ideas. So I'd like to address them and maybe try to demonstrate that those ideas would indeed work (so please let me know if I managed to convince you at least a little bit). >Similarly, if you dislike the service of your private protection agency (which is still a government, just not monopolistic), then if you stop paying you'll just end up dead, unless you can pay for equivalent protection from someone else. So, at the very least I already have a choice between one protection agency and another. If one promises to kill me if I cancel my subscription, I simply go to another agency that will be happy to have my money and ask them to protect me against the one I dislike. Because both agencies are in the business to make money, they realize that violence is more expensive and nothing happens. Then people would usually say "But what if two agencies form a cartel"? Well, in that case, nothing really prevents a third agency to spring up as a competition and take customers away. Historically, cartels break down very fast without any intervention because one of the cartel members usually breaks the rules or an outside competitor emerges. Also, intimidating even one customer because he decides to unsubscribe is very likely to cause a chain reaction where a company simply loses its business. A cartel, though, is still a better situation than a government. If a cartel decides to kill or detain anyone who's not paying, it cannot actually claim, like government does, that it's a legitimate action, because people would take it for what it is - a violent action by a criminal gang. A great majority of people would be very likely to at least stop paying the cartel as soon as they realize it doesn't do them any good and some violent resistance is also very likely. A cartel is in the business of making money, thus it is in its interest to make more money and attract more customers. They can't print money, nor can they steal without losing a lot of customers. >if like me you find it distasteful that the US can abuse its economic power to trample people in other nations around the world, how do you tolerate the idea of billionaires doing whatever the hell they please Billionaires can't really do what they please to the extent a government can. First of all, any violence that is likely to happen would be paid for out of this billionaires pockets. Governments, on the other hand, don't pay for violence. They steal money from taxpayers, then use these money to finance wars, steal more money and indoctrinate people, convincing them that what they do is not actually theft. I don't really see rich people starting wars or intimidating other people. Why? Because it's a costly activity. Creating actual value is profitable. Inducing violence to steal money is only profitable when you can steal more than you spend in the long run.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

The market doesn't exist without property titles.

snitko 13y ago
Your misconception is that it's government who creates property titles. That's not true at all. Even in the animal world, territorial rights are enforced by animals themselves or groups of animals. They don't have any kind of government. Now what government does is it provides a service of protecting that property. Indeed, it's much better than having to protect your own property yourself all the time, but it's much worse than hiring private protection agencies. Two reasons: 1) you can't stop paying for the government service if you dislike it 2) customers who may need various levels of protection cannot subscribe to various service plans, thus some customers get inadequate levels or protection, while some subsidize protection of others. Again, enforcing property rights != government. Government is just one way of doing it.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Your misconception is that it's government who creates property titles. Because it is. > Even in the animal world, territorial rights are enforced by animals themselves or groups of animals. The power of the each individual, or collaborating group, to claim as much territory as they can effectively defend, independent of who held it before, is pretty much the opposite of what "property" and "property titles" are. > Now what government does is it provides a service of protecting that property. Indeed, it's much better than having to protect your own property yourself all the time, but it's much worse than hiring private protection agencies. Two reasons: 1) you can't stop paying for the government service if you dislike it Yes, you can. Now, there may be negative consequences to this, but, in the absence of a government to constrain the action of "private protection agencies" (which are, de facto, governments) exercising force to defend property, the same can be expected. In fact, where such private protection agencies have played a major role in protecting property (with or without the consent of whatever de jure government nominally operated in the area), retaliation against those who attempt to opt-out of their "protection" has been a frequent feature of their operation. > 2) customers who may need various levels of protection cannot subscribe to various service plans, thus some customers get inadequate levels or protection, while some subsidize protection of others. I find it interesting that you posit "the rich can't buy better protection of their property rights than the poor" as a problem with government, but I think you'll find considerable disagreement on two grounds with that claim: * First, disagreement that the absence of equal protection is a problem, and * Second, disagreement that the absence of an ability for the rich to buy better protection is, in fact, a feature of government in the real world (however much it might be in some theoretical models.)