Viability of anarchocapitalism

[Surlethe]

Edit: I'm not dragging myself into this.

[Crateria]

Split from here. While we did have a round or two about this topic recently, and so I am unsure if another discussion is warranted, I'll allow it in the hope that something interesting will come out of it.

As usual, no dogpiling. I am watching this thread.

Also, Crateria, learn to use the quote function.

I only didn't because it was late where I was (12:50 something in US of A) and I didn't plan on going back and editing all of his statements/claims. I'll use quote function next time.

[Crateria]

Without a government there won't be corporations with limited liability? Oh boy, no, that's not so. There will be corporations and they would limit their liability via PMC's. Essentially becoming the substitute for a government.

In any case, I think we haven't had a solid debate on anarchism for a rather long time. I'm at least partially sympathetic to the anarchist cause, so I must say I'll observe this with interest.

A substitute for government, you say? That right there is a scary thought. Watch as the Anarcho-Capitalist society falls quickly into Blade Runner. And since it is the government, who is going to curb its behaviors? Wall Street certainly didn't fear the Feds despite all of their immoral, dangerous behavior (ie, all those companies that traded in toxic items or whatever, right? I'm not exactly sure on what happened there, so could you fill me in on some of the stuff? Sorry to ask)

I am sympathetic to the anarchist cause as well. Just not to anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-corporatism (which is what people not too long ago were saying we in the USA had), and anarcho primitivism. I suppose Anarcho-Capitalism could work... for a few days before the problems start growing larger.

[Ryan Thunder]

The thing is that you can live how you choose. If you and others band together and decide to form a government, more power to you. I will live apart and negotiate with whom I choose, associate with whom I choose. The moment you try to enforce said government on me, however, you gave up any moral right to your life not being taken from you.

Strength in numbers has other ideas.

Anyway, everything you have suggested as a rebuttal to the criticisms leveled against your ideology depends on everybody in your system being omniscient, smart, and thinking long-term. This is not what happens in practice by any stretch of the imagination. Many people, in practice, are greedy, stupid, and myopic, to such a degree that it is safe to assume that this is generally the case for most people, even. Dissolving governments isn't going to change that or alleviate any of the problems brought about by that. Rather it's liable to exacerbate them. Severely.

The problems with our current system are brought about by its nature; the short-term rewards for doing things that are harmful are higher than the rewards for doing things that are beneficial, necessary, and/or desirable.

I think it would be more beneficial to consider how to solve that problem instead of working backward from any particular desired solution.

[Crateria]

When government is around to monitor the behavior of corporations, it can prevent them from doing things like child labor and giving starvation wages to save money.

Actually, it was government forces that allowed them to pay starvation wages (company store towns) and use children for labor.

But what did it show? It showed that given government complicity (and little regulation and punishment), corporations will be sociopathic dicks to the workers they hire in order to both cut costs and maximize production. And this is with a weak government, back in the Gilded Age, no? How will corporations behave in the AC society where they will turn into the de-facto government, being that they have both the influence from the previous regime (that they can use to bribe and blackmail the Anarcho-Capitalist leaderships, which will likely be more amenable given all the problems they'll face upon taking office), the experience of past business in dealing with competitors (both violently and through "nicer" means) and the tools and tech to run a proper society? Perhaps a few isolated communities will be able to resist them, but for a majority- they will need the corporations to deal with the economy.

What safeguards will be in the society to prevent the corporations from doing these things? Armed mobs might work, but they can't just kill various members of the corporation, because, after all, there can be various people within the corporation that have skills that are vital to maintaining a strong business (many of which, y'know, keep supplies of food and other necessities, or hell convieniences coming to the people)

On a side note, how do your ACs get into power? Do they arrive via the ballot box in an election? Through violence and intimidation to get their ways? I consider the latter to be more likely, but given America's peoples' voting records, some might just want to have a taste of the AC future.

That's nothing compared to no regulation, because then they would be free to do what they please.

No they wouldn't. They still have to produce goods that people want. They have to give incentives to their workers or they'll simply walk off the job. They could not simply enslave their workers since that requires hiring mercenaries. Dead mercenaries drive up costs and cause others to say 'Fuck you, I'm not taking the chance of getting shot by a disgruntled slave'. They also have to negotiate with other companies (to take Wal-Mart as an example). With no State-sanctioned courts, judges will have to be found and it will require both sides to agree on a negotiator. If one side reneges on their agreement, it becomes a mark against them. Bad faith in business means businesses will lose customers (word of mouth bad-mouthing, picketing etc) and lose trading partners.

I know they'll still produce the goods that people want. They aren't stupid, they've been doing that for however long the company's been existing. What I'm saying in terms of "they do what they want" is that they'll still make products (since desire for both vital things like food or worthless trinkets hasn't decreased) It doesn't require mercenaries. All they have to do is keep their guards armed and both the people who work for them and the consumers in a state of "I need to tolerate this or I'll be SOL"

Even if there is no government, corporations will likely still exist anyway because people need food and water and other resources, and tend to band together to create companies.

Do not confuse/conflate a company with a corporation. The latter is a government sanctioned legal shield. I never said there would be no companies. I said there would be no corporations.

They'll still be likely to operate the same way. Potatoe, potato.

Additionally, if anyone can just go do whatever (since you, y'lnow, need a police force to stop crime) there will have to be things like mob justice. No, there WILL be mob justice or possibly cowboys. It might look like the Wild West out there. YOu sure you want this?

I never said there would be no crime. However, if the entire populace is now free to buy/control arms, then crime will rapidly diminish. How many criminals are going to want to rip off a store when they see the owner (or his security staff) with machineguns and/or automatic rifles? As for mob justice, again, that will depend greatly upon what happens. If Wal-Mart starts enslaving its employees, the local citizenry might decide to form their own militia and free them. Same with any potential would-be road pirates. Dead customers pay no tolls/give no resources. Mr. Pirate is going to quickly find himself isolated.

Guns don't necessarily make people completely safe. What, you expect the criminals to bust into a store, obviously armed, knowing that the owners are also armed? A better way would be to go in a group and do something distracting that allows them to get the slip on the owners and their guards. Will the local militia or whatever be so sure that they've got the right guy, considering that many of them likely won't be police? With no police force, I suspect that the weapons trade will increase as a rule since there is less regulation of the black market. Remember, black markets are one of the purest forms of capitalism

Besides, Wal-Mart already treats many of employees like crap, and you don't see people rising up and freeing them. Yes, this is partly due to the government having police and FBI informants ready to deal with armed bands. But one of the other reasons why is because most people don't go any further than simply badmouthing Wal-Mart or picketing is because they simply don't care. Otherwise, America would likely be in civil war against the corrupt corporatist government here.

Besides, who says they are of the anarcho-capitalist country? They could be foreign invaders that run roughshod over the people like the East India Company.

Yes, but that requires foreign soldiers to come protect the foreign corporation. If the populace is hostile, that would drive up the cost of staffing soldiers on foreign soil.

So what? Did that stop the British-backed East India Company from crushing the Indian people? Were Standard Oil's American guardians stopped by Chinese resistance in 1927? Were the Dutch East Indies all a hoax? Did the US Government realize that, hey, maybe it'll cost more than it's worth in the end to support all those greedy corporations that want South Americans to work as basically slaves for GAP and Banana farms? Did Iraq not become a corporate whore? Is Hamid Karzai not a tool of US and Chinese companies that want a pipeline through Afghanistan or access to the recently discovered gas reserves ? Did the Nazis totally forget to use the untermench they had to make products for their companies in concentration camps and captured cities? Did Japan's China Expedition Army not make the conquered serfs of Asia work as slave labor for the East Asia Development Board?

Long story short, even the most armed and resistant of populations were still conquered and forced to slave away for corporations that were protected by powerful governments' soldiers. The AC society will be no different. Your feeble populance is no match for the power of the Dark Side of the Market!

Especially without a government to retain a monopoly on force, the whole society is likely to be turned against each other; easy picking for an invader- all they have to do is sell weapons to the sides and make treaties and wait until they're weak enough to be conquered and put to work in whatever the company wants.

Other countries might well have to worry about their own populations turning against them. We've seen mass protests gain steam in the last year. The world wouldn't suddenly revert to the 19th Century without the government (I'm thinking of the US and likely Canada as the basis here). People would still end up connected to mass communications because those companies want to continue business.

How is that relevant? Of course nations' leaderships can be overthrown, but weak, brittle societies like the one your ideology calls for are even easier to destroy.

Competition between communities is almost a given since there is no unifying force like a national government to hold the country together.

And most will try and peacefully negotiate. War is destructive and does not create a goddamn thing. People aren't going to all of a sudden become psychotic.

You say it like people totally understand the choices they make sometimes. The majority might talk it out, we'll never know for certain, but there's plenty of deaths that might occur that could have been prevented had a more well-thought out philosophy come to power instead of Anarcho Capitalism. Think about how trivial things in human history have caused people to go apeshit. Like skin color. Or religion, especially the Abrahamic ones.

Can you imagine if China for example was an anarcho-capitalist society where everybody (possibly even by street or province) split against each other since they had no national government?

Except you're not talking about Anarchism. Warlords constitute government. Let's use Somalia as an example:

http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

Abstract

Could anarchy be good for Somalia’s development? If state predation goes unchecked government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but can actually reduce welfare below its level under statelessness. Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to
its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper uses an “event study” to investigate the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this
development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government. Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia’s economy and public goods in the absence of a predatory state are responsible for this improvement.

Xeer, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A guurti (court) is traditionally formed beneath an acacia tree, where judges arbitrate a dispute until both parties are satisfied. This process can sometimes lead to several days' worth of discussions.

Xeer, pronounced [ħeːr], is the polycentric legal system of Somalia. Under this system, elders serve as judges and help mediate cases using precedents.[1] It is a good example of how customary law works within a stateless society and is a fair approximation of what is thought of as natural law. Several scholars have noted that even though Xeer may be centuries old, it has the potential to serve as the legal system of a modern, well-functioning economy.[2][3][4]

According to one report, the Somali nation did not begin with the common use of the Somali language by the clans, but rather with the collective observance of Xeer. Xeer is thus referred to as being both the father and child of the Somali nation. An analogous phenomenon is said to have occurred among the neighboring Oromo nation, which is now under Ethiopian rule.[3]

Under Xeer, there is no authority that dictates what the law should be. The law is instead discovered by judges as they determine the best way to resolve a dispute. As such, the Somali nation by tradition is a stateless society; that is, Somalis have never accepted the authority of any central government, their own or any other.[3] Under Xeer law, Somalia forms a kritarchy and conforms in many respects to natural law. The lack of a central governing authority means that there is a slight variation in the interpretation of Xeer amongst different communities. The laws that are widely accepted are called xeer guud and those particular to a specific community are referred to as xeer tolnimo.[5]

As with law systems in Western states, the Xeer legal system also demands a certain amount of specialization of different functions within the legal framework. Thus, one can find odayal (judges), xeer boggeyaal (jurists), guurtiyaal (detectives), garxajiyaal (attorneys), murkhaatiyal (witnesses) and waranle (police officers) to enforce the law.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer

(I know, Wikipedia ain't exactly the best resource in the world, still it can be useful).

Great, Xeer or whatever is helping Somalia. And another year goes by and Somalia is still the violent, poor Anarcho-Capitalist hellhole it was 20 or so years ago. Oh, and it's about to be taken over by the Somali equivalent of the Taliban. Who were formed to protect (and oppress) the people from the violent warlords that sprung up after the corrupt dictatorship was overthrown in 1991. Yeah, I can't wait for that to be brought to Murrica.

And thanks for ignoring my point. China was in a state of anarchy and warlordism- the central government didn't control the whole country, which left China weakened and divided right up until the Japanese invaded and beat the shit out of the country. And when the Nationalists continued to be warlords and keep the country in the virtual state of anarchy, the Communists bided their time and slowly ground the warlords into dust. So thanks for proving my point: Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't pay.

Do you know why they replaced it with a stronger Federal Government? Because it didn't work out in running a country.

No, they did work. What they didn't do was control the Mercantilists like Hamilton (proto-Corporatists).

Really? Then why did the whole country look like it was going to break apart due to problems between the little and big states. Also look at this from Wikipedia, the same source you quote from.

"The Continental Congress printed paper money which was so depreciated that it ceased to pass as currency, spawning the expression "not worth a continental". Congress could not levy taxes and could only make requisitions upon the States. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784, although the governors had been asked for two million in 1783 alone."

"Congress was denied any powers of taxation: it could only request money from the states. The states often failed to meet these requests in full, leaving both Congress and the Continental Army chronically short of money. As more money was printed by Congress, the continental dollars depreciated. In 1779, George Washington wrote to John Jay, who was serving as the president of the Continental Congress, "that a wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon load of provisions."[18] Mr. Jay and the Congress responded in May by requesting $45 million from the States. In an appeal to the States to comply, Jay wrote that the taxes were "the price of liberty, the peace, and the safety of yourselves and posterity."[19] He argued that Americans should avoid having it said "that America had no sooner become independent than she became insolvent" or that "her infant glories and growing fame were obscured and tarnished by broken contracts and violated faith."[20] The States did not respond with any of the money requested from them."

"By 1787 Congress was unable to protect manufacturing and shipping. State legislatures were unable or unwilling to resist attacks upon private contracts and public credit. Land speculators expected no rise in values when the government could not defend its borders nor protect its frontier population."

"The peace treaty left the United States independent and at peace but with an unsettled governmental structure. The Articles envisioned a permanent confederation, but granted to the Congress—the only federal institution—little power to finance itself or to ensure that its resolutions were enforced. There was no president and no national court.[21][22] Although historians generally agree that the Articles were too weak to hold the fast-growing nation together, they do give credit to the settlement of the western issue, as the states voluntarily turned over their lands to national control.[23]"

See, it was too weak to hold SPARTAFREEDOMERICA together. Hell, it's probably too weak to hold any nation together.

White slavers thought blacks were property, and they weren't stopped until a strong government (aka the Union, and latter the Federal government) beat the shit out of their little project by first defeating the Confederates and then much later on by passing laws against segregation.

Except we're not talking about a world that resembles the 19th Century. The US government is not there protecting people from backsliding into slavery.

It could resemble the 19th century if it goes on for too long. Again, with no safeguards for corporations or anybody for that matter, it becomes a rat race.

Look at the Soviet Union after 1991. It was a first world nation when it collapsed and after a decade of quasi-anarcho-capitalist governance it was a second or third world nation like Brazil. The Mafia and their buds, with a cutthroat anarcho-capitalist mentality in store, ran the nation... right into the ground, that is!

Talk to Stas Bush. He went there and knows it first hand. What they had there was insane. It was very similar to anarcho-capitalism, was it not Stas?

Again, consider the nature of humans. They are competitive above all else.

I do consider human nature. Humans are fundamentally adaptive. They can adapt to situations, no matter how rational or irrational they find themselves in.

This isn't a case of the Borg. (before I get flamed, I know that they can't adapt to everything ) Humans can adapt, but much of history has been of humans being violent, stupid and irrational. Hell, human history could be summed up as making great technological and social advances while still being bloodthirsty and idiotic. That's thousands of years of evidence against your little AC society, yet to be formed. If it's such a great idea, why haven't we seen more of them? Anybody could look up anarcho-capitalist literature, its not like it's illegal.

With no government to police them, they tend to go into every-man-for-himself.

They will defend their property. Which is how people behave now, its just they have farmed out the duties to a force (the police) who have routinely said they are not there to protect property. The overwhelming majority of people will peacefully negotiate for mutual advantage.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Peacefully negotiate for a mutual advantage. What a joke. Perhaps at the beginning they might, but as life in AC Land grows more difficult, you can bet there will be fighting. And lots of it, I can imagine. Especially since now everyone is armed. It's a conflagration waiting for a spark. And everything's going against the society.

Would you like North Korea to have multiple competing forces now transferring WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, INCLUDING NUKES, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS to TERRORISTS LIKE AL-QAEDA? You know, the ones who hate our guts and would gladly kill us all? What's to stop Menta-Lee-Ill down the street from selling a nuclear sub to them with the support of his AC community, which desperately wants the money to keep their pathetic society afloat? Strong, sane governments.

How many people are going to arm another group that could easily use those weapons against them? Really, do you think that Al-Qaeda would give two 2 shits about the people of what used to be the United States if we weren't on their soil, killing their people?

1. It certainly didn't stop the US from arming Hezbi Islami, despite the fact that they hated our guts. Sure, government-to-terrorists, but it shows that if even gov'ts aren't omniscient and wise, there's no guarantee the armed people might be.

Why do you think so many people will use hard drugs, even though they tend to destroy your body? It's because they can be stupid at times. Or how about Lotto? Your chances of winning are slim, yet thousands cash in. Be glad its' a thing which pays for some of your utilities rather than the corrupt kind done by thieves.

2. All it takes is the local mafia or armed mob to decide that they want some cash, and they'll head over to wherever the WMDs are stored and take them. (unless the guards there say no, but they'll be out of work since teh gov't is no more, AND liable to GET SHOT, considering that all the people are likely armed) Considering that after the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a huge risk that the KGB, now out of work, would supply various WMDs to terrorists or rogue nations like Iran or NK, which could easily support terrorists after that point. The nukes there weren't heavily guarded, and could be stored in suitcases. All it takes is one to cause widespread destruction to a nation, and there's no telling what happens next.

3. Of course they would still give 2 shits about the USA, since either it's still around (and thus an enemy) or it's been turned into an AC society, which is now no longer fully unified, facing massive uncertainties about its future, has policy changes dependent on armed mobs and is ALSO an infidel nation. In short order, you have made the former USA (if that's where the AC society is) much more vulnerable to fanatics whose military goals still exist. You can't just pretend that they'll stop bothering you if you put your head in the sand. Even if you say that you don't want to fight the terrorists anymore, they'll still attack since you haven't given into all their demands. Al-Qaeda's demands include world domination under fundamentalist islam. With the decadent Christian-majority USA bickering and infighting under the AC society... well, you hopefully get the point.

Damn straight it won't be a utopia. It'll be likely a hell on earth. On my planet? I don't think so.

The thing is that you can live how you choose. If you and others band together and decide to form a government, more power to you. I will live apart and negotiate with whom I choose, associate with whom I choose. The moment you try to enforce said government on me, however, you gave up any moral right to your life not being taken from you.

How big is this society of yours going to be, anyway? I won't attack your AC country unless it messes with me, but I doubt the rest of the world will need such a condition. Which countries will have to be reduced or destroyed outright to make room for it? Will the whole world be Anarcho Capitalist for your idea to exist in full practice? How strong is the military of your AC country? If it is nothing but armed populances, it's easy pickings for an invader, who will likely have all sorts of people-killing weapons. But I expect it to not last very long anyway.

Sorry about my inexperience with using quotes. I tried again on this post, but I have a feeling nothing we say will get past his Wall Of Ignorance.

[Crateria]

So why do we see 'checkpoints' charging tolls crop up so frequently in lawless areas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU
Here's one now! In AC Land, no doubt!
SOMEBODY'S GOT TO GO BACK AND GET A SHIT LOAD OF DIMES!

[The Vortex Empire]

Anybody else remember that Voluntaryist guy? This guy is exactly like him, and I suggest he read the Colosseum match Voluntaryist was involved in and some of the threads he was in, as everything he's said so far has been addressed already in those discussions.

[Crateria]

Anybody else remember that Voluntaryist guy? This guy is exactly like him, and I suggest he read the Colosseum match Voluntaryist was involved in and some of the threads he was in, as everything he's said so far has been addressed already in those discussions.

I actually remember seeing that topic, but I didn't remember anything from it. Are you implying that that my points are wrong, ie. I'm bringing up the same ones as the Voluntaryist guy? That this discussion is pointless?

[The Vortex Empire]

Anybody else remember that Voluntaryist guy? This guy is exactly like him, and I suggest he read the Colosseum match Voluntaryist was involved in and some of the threads he was in, as everything he's said so far has been addressed already in those discussions.

I actually remember seeing that topic, but I didn't remember anything from it. Are you implying that that my points are wrong, ie. I'm bringing up the same ones as the Voluntaryist guy? That this discussion is pointless?

No, BrooklynRedLeg is exactly like Voluntaryist and is bringing up the exact same points he did. Always good to have more discussions about something, but he might learn something from a review of those threads.

[Crateria]

Anybody else remember that Voluntaryist guy? This guy is exactly like him, and I suggest he read the Colosseum match Voluntaryist was involved in and some of the threads he was in, as everything he's said so far has been addressed already in those discussions.

I actually remember seeing that topic, but I didn't remember anything from it. Are you implying that that my points are wrong, ie. I'm bringing up the same ones as the Voluntaryist guy? That this discussion is pointless?

No, BrooklynRedLeg is exactly like Voluntaryist and is bringing up the exact same points he did. Always good to have more discussions about something, but he might learn something from a review of those threads.

Ah, I see what you mean. His links go to obviously Anarcho-Capitalist websites.

Do you know if I'm debating him correctly, ie. getting the right messages and points across?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I basically show him an image of medieval carnage whenever he opens his mouth on the subject.

Which in no way, shape or form constitutes a rational argument. How the Migration/Viking/Conquest Era can be considered an example of Anarchy is beyond me. Anarchy means 'Without Rulers'. Last time I checked, the "Dark Ages" was the era of the Strong Man/King, many of whose ancestors got their start as Roman foederates. What in the blue fuck do government strong men have to do with 'Without Rulers'?

Governments by their nature have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In a modern state they use this force in order to maintain order. They redistribute wealth in order to reduce the variance in income (and thus lower crime rates), they investigate, prosecute, and punish crimes, maintain civil services such as fire departments.

In an anarchistic society, these functions must be taken up by either the free individuals (somehow acting in concert without centralized authority) or by larger private and often competing interests (corporations or their equivalent). You WILL have bad apples. You WILL have people, say, rapists, who use the lack of ability to efficiently investigate crimes to their advantage. You will have people robbing etc. Especially because without a central government, public infrastructure collapses.

What do you end up with? Strong men. DuPont creates a nice little compound for its employees. Power companies take complete control over regional grids and leverage it for power. You end up with a sort of techno-feudalism at the end of the day, and if you do not think that these companies will not use that power in order to exert violent force on their competitors, all I need to do is point you to the problem of Conflict Diamonds and what happened in countries like Sierra Leone.

[Crateria]

I basically show him an image of medieval carnage whenever he opens his mouth on the subject.

Which in no way, shape or form constitutes a rational argument. How the Migration/Viking/Conquest Era can be considered an example of Anarchy is beyond me. Anarchy means 'Without Rulers'. Last time I checked, the "Dark Ages" was the era of the Strong Man/King, many of whose ancestors got their start as Roman foederates. What in the blue fuck do government strong men have to do with 'Without Rulers'?

Governments by their nature have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In a modern state they use this force in order to maintain order. They redistribute wealth in order to reduce the variance in income (and thus lower crime rates), they investigate, prosecute, and punish crimes, maintain civil services such as fire departments.

In an anarchistic society, these functions must be taken up by either the free individuals (somehow acting in concert without centralized authority) or by larger private and often competing interests (corporations or their equivalent). You WILL have bad apples. You WILL have people, say, rapists, who use the lack of ability to efficiently investigate crimes to their advantage. You will have people robbing etc. Especially because without a central government, public infrastructure collapses.

What do you end up with? Strong men. DuPont creates a nice little compound for its employees. Power companies take complete control over regional grids and leverage it for power. You end up with a sort of techno-feudalism at the end of the day, and if you do not think that these companies will not use that power in order to exert violent force on their competitors, all I need to do is point you to the problem of Conflict Diamonds and what happened in countries like Sierra Leone.

I have a strong feeling nothing we say will change his mind.

Which outcome is more likely, though? Sierra Leone? Colombia? Iraqistan? Let's hope we never find out.
Also, like I said, am I debating correctly? I just want to know.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How do they enforce those tolls? Not going to do too well when people stop using that road or start killing gang members. Again, if people try and use force, others will band together and use retaliatory force against them.

And you end up with the Law of the Jungle, or even more likely, Feudalism. Feudalism is what happens in this system. The people band together, and whoever they choose to be in charge of the toll-cleansing operation becomes a strong man. He builds relationships with those under his command and they become his loyal retainers. Said strong man can then get paid in some way (land, food, women, whatever) and can turn enforcement of order, maintenance of infrastructure and trade etc into his job. He can geographically subcontract to his retainers etc, and more than likely, he will be a person who had power and money before the collapse of the original government. Say, Walmart.

This is exactly how feudalism developed. Local powerful individuals taking over in the lawlessness after the collapse of Rome. How would you like to see Walmart perform a chevauchee against the neighboring holdings of Target. Hostile takeover will take on a whole new (or old) meaning.

Oh god... I can see it. The Salt River Project laying siege to the Palo Verde nuclear plant....

[K. A. Pital]

Look at the Soviet Union after 1991. It was a first world nation when it collapsed and after a decade of quasi-anarcho-capitalist governance it was a second or third world nation like Brazil. The Mafia and their buds, with a cutthroat anarcho-capitalist mentality in store, ran the nation... right into the ground, that is!

Talk to Stas Bush. He went there and knows it first hand. What they had there was insane. It was very similar to anarcho-capitalism, was it not Stas?

Well, a minor correction: (1) it was a second-world nation (2) yes, the level of violence dramatically increased (3) yes, for a few years it was similar to anarcho-capitalism because the government almost lost control of anything in the state and the state itself nearly disintegrated; (4) just after a bare few years of chaos it transformed into oligarchic dictatorship like that of Pinochet; that was it.

Anarchy never lasts long. Five armed people in a van are enough to take away all you have. They're also strong enough to protect what you have. Sooner or later they join with other guys and opress some other guys.

The state evolves from anarchy, just like monopoly evolves from competition.

[HMS Conqueror]

Feudalism developed by some guys coming in as an invading mob, destroying the incumbent political structures, and deciding that instead of carrying off their new slaves and property as spoils of war they will just live as Kings amid the ruins. It's the complete opposite of a bottom-up political structure.

---

One of the things you have to examine when trying to answer a question like this - and I've devoted a fair few hours to it myself - is how social mores and unwritten rules in society guide our behaviour. A lot of people look at it as "since there's no government, people will all try to commit as much crime as possible, and ideally becoming despotic governments themselves, since that's just like being a criminal gang but people call you "Sir" and give you a seat in the UN...". The problem with this is that people do not actually try to power-maximise. It's rather like the textbook 'homo-economicus': the rational actor who maximises his income. He's an ok first approximation, but he's not how the world really works.

If you don't believe me, have a think about these questions:

Why doesn't the US Army or the British Army establish a military junta tomorrow? Why do armies in Latin American and African democracies establish military juntas so much more readily?

or

Why did the Roman Empire have repeated coups, civil wars and frequent secession crises? Why were these things much less common in the European monarchies that replaced it?

There doesn't seem an immediately obvious reason why. The US army could kill Congress and the President and start looting the wealth of the US, just like feudal hordes who invaded the Roman Empire. Or they could force the government to flee, and peacefully-ish take up the reigns of government like the Egyptian military did recently. But this seems ridiculous to us, and it's not for pragmatic reasons that it isn't done. It's for, not necessarily 'moral' reasons, but because the commonly accepted unwritten rules of American society do not permit it. It would be very dangerous to do because almost everyone would oppose it - even people inside the military - but it's more than that: no one at the top of the military who stands to gain would even think to do it. This is not the case in other countries.

My point is that even most 'statist' societies are really held together by values, and only in extreme circumstances by naked force - which is wielded in a particular direction because of those values. The laws don't mean anything if people don't enforce them, and while it doesn't require consent as such, it does require something more than fear. Fear of whom? Why would the US army fight to uphold the constitution rather than to loot the biggest short-term gain for itself as possible? And yet it does.

An anarcho-capitalist society would require these sorts of unwritten rules, that would see the majority of the people - what you might call the citizen militia, since in ancapland they would all have guns - want to fight to defend the ancap laws. And it would reach a point where no one in the society would even think of trying to overthrow it, such would be the social stigma and the physical danger of embarking on such a plan, but more than that, it would be totally against the values on which most people base their worldview. It would cease to be considered a serious possibility, just like how no one in Britain even thinks about the possibility that the army would coup Parliament. Not because it's physically impossible, or because there wouldnt be a proximal benefit, but because it's "wrong".

The problem for the ancap is: how do you change the unwritten social rules to get to that stage? And that's a huge problem, because Kings, Emperors and Premiers of even the most despotic regimes only dream of having such power.

[Surlethe]

The state evolves from anarchy, just like monopoly evolves from competition.

Well ... by its nature a monopoly in the force market erects significant barriers to entry into the force market. That's not necessarily true in other markets, in which monopolies often prove transitory.

[HMS Conqueror]

Look at the Soviet Union after 1991. It was a first world nation when it collapsed and after a decade of quasi-anarcho-capitalist governance it was a second or third world nation like Brazil. The Mafia and their buds, with a cutthroat anarcho-capitalist mentality in store, ran the nation... right into the ground, that is!

Talk to Stas Bush. He went there and knows it first hand. What they had there was insane. It was very similar to anarcho-capitalism, was it not Stas?

Well, a minor correction: (1) it was a second-world nation (2) yes, the level of violence dramatically increased (3) yes, for a few years it was similar to anarcho-capitalism because the government almost lost control of anything in the state and the state itself nearly disintegrated; (4) just after a bare few years of chaos it transformed into oligarchic dictatorship like that of Pinochet; that was it.

Anarchy never lasts long. Five armed people in a van are enough to take away all you have. They're also strong enough to protect what you have. Sooner or later they join with other guys and opress some other guys.

The state evolves from anarchy, just like monopoly evolves from competition.

Not that this is the main point, but I don't like when people butcher history. The borders of the post-Soviet states are neither arbitrary nor random: they are the borders of the SFSRs - Soviet analogues of US states -, which existed before, and then with different names and styles, after the collapse of what might be called the Soviet federal government. The way it proceeded is that Yeltsin become President of the Russian SFSR, and had it declare independence of the Soviet Union. Without Russia, the Soviet Union is not viable, and so the other SFSRs were forced to take similar action. Many of them didn't need much forcing. There was no period of anarchy in anything more than a figurative sense. For a few days there was uncertainty who would win the civil war (or, whether there would be one, if you prefer). But no uncertainty that someone would, and they were the state, or at least a state.

The breakup of the Soviet Union is one of the best illustrations of what I've been talking about in the last post of modern times. And, of course, no one bothers to study it. The Soviet Union lost legitimacy in the eyes of many people, and the existing institutions were co-opted to undermine it. The army could have crushed Yeltsin - if it had remained loyal to the Soviet Union. But when an institution loses general legitimacy even among its own inner circle, what was once an unshakable dictatorial monolith quickly melts away to nothing. All the laws and guns in the world won't save you if the men behind them don't believe in your cause - or worse, believe your cause is hurting them and their families.

[JPaganel]

I suspect that the weapons trade will increase as a rule since there is less regulation of the black market.

Wait, what? By definition, there is no regulation on the black market and without regulation there is no black market.

Look at the Soviet Union after 1991. It was a first world nation when it collapsed and after a decade of quasi-anarcho-capitalist governance it was a second or third world nation like Brazil. The Mafia and their buds, with a cutthroat anarcho-capitalist mentality in store, ran the nation... right into the ground, that is!

There was absolutely nothing anarcho-anything about Russia. There was a government, and it did govern. Still does. And it's anything but hands-off. The government and the mafia are one and the same, but that is not because some anarchists took over in the absence of government. It is because the mafia is an outgrowth of the government. Today's oligarchs are yesterday's Komsomol functionaries. BTW, 1991 wasn't the radical change the West thinks it was. More of a repaint and a nameplate swap.

Governments by their nature have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In a modern state they use this force in order to maintain order. They redistribute wealth in order to reduce the variance in income (and thus lower crime rates), they investigate, prosecute, and punish crimes, maintain civil services such as fire departments.

In the present-day USA this is not the case. There are circumstances in which citizens may use force, even deadly force, legally. There are many localities that have no government-run fire departments, instead relying on volunteer FD and places where there is no municipal law enforcement, but rather an elected sheriff who is answerable directly to voters of the county. Society does not seem to be collapsing in these areas.

Granted, these places are usually rural and sparsely populated, but that indicates that such things just don't scale well, rather than being totally impossible.

Anarchy never lasts long.

True that. It fails for the same reason communism never actually happened beyond small communes - people are greedy assholes.

The problem for the ancap is: how do you change the unwritten social rules to get to that stage?

See Ursula Le Guin's Dispossessed for the recipe. Briefly, a small band of idealists moves to an isolated and unpopulated place and indoctrinates children hard and early. Eventually, these children and their descendants similarly indoctrinated give you the people with new social rules. In the book they were more communist than anarchist, but this should work for any kind of a society you might want to build.

The borders of the post-Soviet states are neither arbitrary nor random: they are the borders of the SFSRs - Soviet analogues of US states -, which existed before, and then with different names and styles, after the collapse of what might be called the Soviet federal government.

I would add that in many of the Soviet republics (notably, the Asian ones), the actual Soviet rule was rather nominal. They largely stayed the backwards feudal shitholes they always were. In the 1920's the local lords took on the titles of Party Secretaries and Chairmen. The essence did not change. In the 1990's they lost some of the Soviet trappings, but the essence still stayed the same. They became a little more honest about it, though.

[Number Theoretic]

Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash" pictures a United States, where the government has no power to speak of. Basically, the country is subdivied into thousands of micro-nations, most of them being franchises of either some corporation or the mafia or any other organisation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Feudalism developed by some guys coming in as an invading mob, destroying the incumbent political structures, and deciding that instead of carrying off their new slaves and property as spoils of war they will just live as Kings amid the ruins. It's the complete opposite of a bottom-up political structure.

No Moron, that is what happened WITHIN a feudal society. The warlord had to come to power somehow. He did that by being a local strong man who was appealed to for protection in return for money/loyalty/military service. As he did that, he expanded his territory by being the invading horde. Besieging fortresses and taking strategic control of territory, forcing defection of villages by raiding them and showing them their strong man cannot protect them while demonstrating his own military power.

Feudalism starts out bottom-up, and switches because bottom up political structures cannot work without a legal framework to support them.

One of the things you have to examine when trying to answer a question like this - and I've devoted a fair few hours to it myself - is how social mores and unwritten rules in society guide our behaviour. A lot of people look at it as "since there's no government, people will all try to commit as much crime as possible, and ideally becoming despotic governments themselves, since that's just like being a criminal gang but people call you "Sir" and give you a seat in the UN...". The problem with this is that people do not actually try to power-maximise. It's rather like the textbook 'homo-economicus': the rational actor who maximises his income. He's an ok first approximation, but he's not how the world really works.

Feudalism does not require that everyone try to maximize their power. Only that some do.

As for your questions:

Why doesn't the US Army or the British Army establish a military junta tomorrow? Why do armies in Latin American and African democracies establish military juntas so much more readily?

Because the soldiers behind the weapons would not tolerate it. They do not hold personal loyalty to their leaders, but rather, ideological loyalty to the state. Latin America has less of a problem with this (typically it happens when another state gets involved and props up a would-be dictator in such a way that he can secure the personal or ideological loyalty required), but in Africa... yeah. The strong-men who form the center of these Juntas do in fact have it. Take the example of Mugabe. He built a cult of personality around himself within the military, so the soldiers are not loyal to the state, but him personally.

Rome had this problem to. Because the generals paid the legions, they were loyal to him and not the roman state.

Why did the Roman Empire have repeated coups, civil wars and frequent secession crises? Why were these things much less common in the European monarchies that replaced it?

What the fuck are you smoking?

In England alone:


Steven I vs the Empress Maud, Henry II vs Eleanor of Aquitaine and their sons and Boys trying to kill eachother... three fucking times during Henry's lifetime. During the reign of King John I, there was a massive civil war when John tried to end Magna Carta. Oh, and then there was Second Baron's War during the reign of Henry III. No one dared fuck with Edward I barring his adventures in Wales and Scotland of course.
His son Edward II was another story. His own wife crossed the channel with Roger Mortimer and violently deposed him. He was forced to abdicate in favor of his son Edward III who no one in their right mind would fuck with. Richard II's reign was a crisis ridden clusterfuck, and he was overthrown by Henry IV. His reign was threatened by Henry Percy, the Archbishop of York, and a few others. His successor, Henry V was a badass and he managed to avoid serious challenges to his reign outside of France...

Then there is the War of the Roses (1455-1485). A thirty year long civil war that founded the Tudor dynasty

That is just England, in a span of some 300 odd years. Just. England. I ask again, what praytell, art thou smoking?

In the present-day USA this is not the case. There are circumstances in which citizens may use force, even deadly force, legally.

Yes. And there are bodies of law making that legitimate. Without those bodies of law, you will end up with blood feuds. John breaks into Steve's house. Steve uses self defense to kill John. John's family is grief stricken and swears revenge. It happens in those rural areas.

There are many localities that have no government-run fire departments, instead relying on volunteer FD and places where there is no municipal law enforcement, but rather an elected sheriff who is answerable directly to voters of the county. Society does not seem to be collapsing in these areas.

They are not government run, but are government funded and organized. The elected Sherrif also a ruler, just like any other elected official.

[HMS Conqueror]

Feudalism developed by some guys coming in as an invading mob, destroying the incumbent political structures, and deciding that instead of carrying off their new slaves and property as spoils of war they will just live as Kings amid the ruins. It's the complete opposite of a bottom-up political structure.

No Moron, that is what happened WITHIN a feudal society. The warlord had to come to power somehow. He did that by being a local strong man who was appealed to for protection in return for money/loyalty/military service. As he did that, he expanded his territory by being the invading horde. Besieging fortresses and taking strategic control of territory, forcing defection of villages by raiding them and showing them their strong man cannot protect them while demonstrating his own military power.

Feudalism starts out bottom-up, and switches because bottom up political structures cannot work without a legal framework to support them.

...the Germanic tribes invaded the Roman Empire, took the property of the inhabitants and made them their serfs. They imposed feudalism externally on a pre-existing citizen/slave set-up (arguably an improvement for some! - although that was proximally due to Christianity rather than feudalism). While I don't tend to care about being called a moron it is somewhat galling when my accuser doesn't do even basic research first.

For the rest of the post... it's not something that lends itself to the cut'n'rebutt approach favoured on a lot of forums. If it wasn't sufficiently clear, what I'm suggesting is that if you applied strong pro-ancap societal pressures, that citizen militias would defend and enforce a customary legal system. How this would be achieved in the first place is another matter, but it seems just as stable as one based on strong pro-US constitution or pro-democracy societal pressures, that apparently successfully restrain armies that could easily seize power if they wanted.

See Ursula Le Guin's Dispossessed for the recipe. Briefly, a small band of idealists moves to an isolated and unpopulated place and indoctrinates children hard and early. Eventually, these children and their descendants similarly indoctrinated give you the people with new social rules. In the book they were more communist than anarchist, but this should work for any kind of a society you might want to build.

That's one way. Although "indoctrination" is a nasty way of putting it. If you live in the US, your school makes you pledge allegiance to the US republic. Even if live in some other western democracy, your teachers and parents will still tell you that democracy is a good thing. Is this indoctrination? It's not usually described as such.

The problem with this is that there isn't a lot of good land left to colonise, and it's all claimed by existing states anyway. Maybe sea-steading is the answer? I think it's grasping at straws, personally, although I wish them the best of luck nonetheless.

[JPaganel]

there are bodies of law making that legitimate.

Sure. Who said there were not? Certainly not me. I am just pointing out that your blanket statement on the monopoly of force has some holes.

They are not government run, but are government funded and organized.

No, they are not. In recent years some have accepted government assistance, but many have not. They are funded by user fees and donations and they govern themselves. That's how they are different from municipal FDs.

The elected Sherrif also a ruler, just like any other elected official.

No. A ruler is a sovereign, someone with supreme power, one who can make the rules. A sheriff cannot create law.

That's one way. Although "indoctrination" is a nasty way of putting it. If you live in the US, your school makes you pledge allegiance to the US republic. Even if live in some other western democracy, your teachers and parents will still tell you that democracy is a good thing. Is this indoctrination? It's not usually described as such.

I think the line between indoctrination and mere upbringing is in how hard the ideology is pounded in and how much you are allowed to stray form the path. In the book it was pretty strict. I haven't always lived in US or a Western democracy, so I think I can make some comparisons.

The problem with this is that there isn't a lot of good land left to colonise, and it's all claimed by existing states anyway. Maybe sea-steading is the answer?

Harsh cliffs of reality dash the utopian dinghy to bits once again...

In the book they got a moon.

[Samuel]

I think the line between indoctrination and mere upbringing is in how hard the ideology is pounded in and how much you are allowed to stray form the path. In the book it was pretty strict. I haven't always lived in US or a Western democracy, so I think I can make some comparisons.

Didn't the government in Dispossessed assign peoples names? I think they had a computer system to insure each person had a unique name and only needed a first name.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Then why doesn't this happen in places like Africa?

These are countries awash in AKs, there's no shortage of weapons. There's no shortage of people, either, people who are probably sick and tired of being preyed on. So why don't they rise up and smack down the oppressive bandits around them?

I'm not an anarchist, but an anarchist could easily argue that the African economy (and ergo society) is distorted by the intervention and economic oppression of the First World, from things like First World agricultural subsidies or aid which prevent real economies from developing in Africa, thus causing the Africans, unable to turn to legitimate economic pursuits, being forced into meagre banditry, to the outright imperialism and resources exploitation which goes on there, largely aided and sanctioned by Western governments, as in France's constant intervention in West Africa in the interests of securing its own power and corporate profits.

[Alyrium Denryle]

...the Germanic tribes invaded the Roman Empire, took the property of the inhabitants and made them their serfs. They imposed feudalism externally on a pre-existing citizen/slave set-up (arguably an improvement for some! - although that was proximally due to Christianity rather than feudalism). While I don't tend to care about being called a moron it is somewhat galling when my accuser doesn't do even basic research first.

Yeah, that might work... if you discount the 300-400 year gap between the fall of rome and the eventual rise of what we now consider feudalism. The first person to really do this on the continent was Charles Martel in the 8th century, and then spread from his holdings to the rest of europe by tenth century. What existed before that was not feudalism per se. Individual tribes had leaders who took their peoples on a conquering/settling spree. In feudalism, there is a hierarchical relationship between one strong man and his subordinates, whereby the Big Strong Man gives land and military aid to his Lesser Strong Men in exchange for loyalty and terms of military service or taxation, and lesser strong men or freeholders could swear fealty to a greater strong man with the same terms. It is a system that evolves naturally both top-down and bottom-up in a society with the breakdown of government functions. Both because new strong men arise out of the chaos, and because pre-existing strong men use their status to leverage more power.

For the rest of the post... it's not something that lends itself to the cut'n'rebutt approach favoured on a lot of forums. If it wasn't sufficiently clear, what I'm suggesting is that if you applied strong pro-ancap societal pressures, that citizen militias would defend and enforce a customary legal system. How this would be achieved in the first place is another matter, but it seems just as stable as one based on strong pro-US constitution or pro-democracy societal pressures, that apparently successfully restrain armies that could easily seize power if they wanted.

Ignoring the fact that it is not about societal pressure at all. It is about the specific loyalty of the soldiers which boils down to who pays them. When The State does it, the soldiers are loyal to the state. When The General does it, they are loyal to the general. All soldiers are, at the end of they day, mercenaries. You may be able to get them to subscribe to a specific ideology, but that means less than who fucking pays them. If the US marines were really loyal to the US constitution, they would have over-thrown the state by now. They have not.

A citizen militia still has to be paid. So, ultimately, if their leader is wealthy and charismatic enough... well... Seriously. Who do you think will be paying them? Free rider problems will be massive in the civilian population, so the only reliable source of money will be the corporation analogues. Walmart will contribute heavily to the militia fund. Of course, because no one will be able to pony up the massive lump sums of cash to pay the Military Industrial Complex (note: currency has now become worthless outside of precious metals, no government means no recourse on loan defaults and thus interest rates in the 40% range) it will collapse. So, you end up with militias armed with more primitive weapons... bolt action rifles maybe?

Argumentum ab absurdo: I can envison it now. With the only currency other than barter being precious metals or gems and interest rates that high, the only weapons a militia could afford would be glaives made from hockey sticks and ice skates (until the Local Armorer rises again...) and bike helmets. I can see the early stages having roving bands of SCA and ARMA mercenaries, selling their actual swords to wallmart, while the remnants of university medieval history clubs provide the siege equipment.