Sunday, July 8, 2012

Reply to Andrew Hartwell

A few thoughts on anarcho-capitalism:

Having run into anarcho-capitalists a couple times online now, I thought it worthwhile to compose a few objections to their proposed system.  I’ve focused particularly on the “anarcho” part of the equation, both because there are plenty of arguments against unrestrained markets by other leftists out there and also because I seek to find common ground with the non-anarchist right.  These are just a few basic objections, briefly sketched, among many.  I’d be interested in responses to these from any political perspective.

1. My first objection is practical.  Even if we were to grant that anarcho-capitalism’s utopia was preferable to the current state of affairs, how would it ever actually come about?  Would elected officials gradually dissolve the state, or would there be some-sort of popular revolution, or what?  The utopians on the left (anarchists and socialists), despite all their failings, have generally had concrete strategies for achieving power; strategies which were successful several times in the 20th Century.  By what means would the right-utopians create a space to carry out their experimental economies?  Mass strikes? Good luck getting masses of workers to revolt against the eight-hour day.  An armed coup by a small group of AnCaps who proceed to dissolve the state?  Right, after a “brief interim period” to secure the revolution.  Electing enough AnCaps to the Congress that they vote to toss out the Constitution and end the government?  Good luck with that - more likely they’d end up compromising, much as historical socialists, once elected to office in European nations, gradually became reformist social democrats.  Without a program for achieving tangible successes, anarcho-capitalism will remain little more than a mental exercise popular amongst a few contrarians in handful of online forums, more akin to modern Stuart restorationists* than a serious political movement.

2. In the absence of a state, what prevents a majority of people, if they were so inclined, from organizing and taking over in a given area and establishing a socialist economy, or any other system they please?  What if the wealthy then get together and organize their forces to prevent or roll back rebellion, or at least to provide each other with a sort of mutual insurance against revolt?  At this point, our utopia seems to be developing into a de facto state, of by and for the new oligarchs.

3. Would an anarcho-capitalist country (or autonomous area, or whatever you want to call it) be able to organize sufficient force to defend from outside attack by other nations?  Could a credible nuclear deterrent be organized on a private basis?  Say your private nuclear-armed firm provides nuclear protection to most of the West Coast, and mine most of the Eastern Seaboard.  Each of us makes deals with our customers that if they are nuked, we will respond with devastating force; this arrangement discourages foreign states’ attacks.  But what am I going to do if China preemptively nukes all your weapons?  Am I going to launch a potentially suicidal retaliation, or am I going to say “Well, I guess a few people will be in the market for new nuclear protection”?  Currently other states know if they nuke Los Angeles, Washington DC will respond.  This deterrent disappears if we divide the nation into private fiefdoms.  On the topic of nukes, how does one avoid the free rider problem when one guy pays for nuclear protection, and his neighbor doesn’t?

*My apologies to any Jacobites that find the comparison distasteful.

 Personally, I don't self-identify as "anarcho-capitalist" but I am fairly familiar with Murray Rothbard's (the person who I believe coined the term) writings so I may be able to field some of 's questions/objections.
1. I think it may be significant to point out that the "anarcho-capitalist" would not necessarily describe the end-result of their ethical/economic/political theory as a "utopia".  They would only go so far as to suggest that the "anarcho-capitalist would minimize person-to-person conflicts and optimize economic productivity (and therefore optimize human-satisfaction/happiness).  Anarcho-capitalists often disagree as to the most efficacious strategies/tactics for carrying their philosophy into practical reality but in general they are open to a variety of means/strategies such as: political activism (such as voting, running for political office, supporting political campaigns that are in line with their values, etc, ethical argumentation/scholarship, economic argumentation/scholarship, social ostracism, individual recruitment, and probably a few other means that aren't readily coming to the fore of my mind at the moment.

Are these means "practical"?  I suppose it depends on how you define "practical"; the "anarcho-" part of "anarcho-capitalist" is in reference with their identification with the "anarchist" philosophical tradition, but the "-capitalist" is where the "anarcho-capitalist" might part-ways with that "anarchist" philosophical tradition, in that, they defend "property" rights to include individual ownership of the "means of production"; therefore, what anarcho-capitalists are generally against, are institutions of force (violence), coercion (threat of violence) and theft (to include fraud) and inasmuch as the State is an institution that embodies all three of these violations of individual/human-rights, "anarcho-capitalists" are generally, in opposition to leviathan of the State.

Just as, Anarcho-capitalists are generally open to a variety of means/strategies, to accomplish this, they are also generally open to a variety possible outcomes of how the abolition of the State might take place, so long as it does take place.  Rothbard, said that what distinguished an "anarcho-capitalism" is her radicalism; her willingness, if a "button" was placed before her, that if she would push it, would immediately and irrevocably abolish the State, that she, "would push it" without hesitation.

I hope perhaps makes the "anarcho-capitalist" stratagem clearer for you +Andrew Hartwell; I'm not sure how to address the "practicality" aspect up without knowing, exactly what you mean but I'd be happy address any additional concerns/objections.

2. "In the absence of a state, what prevents a majority of people, if they were so inclined, from organizing and taking over in a given area and establishing a socialist economy, or any other system they please?"
In fact, Rothbard, conceived that this would quite likely be the case, that in particular communities, persons of like-mind would come together in certain communities to form voluntary-corporate-bodies that might be "socialist" or "syndicalist" or "communist" or any number of other kinds of communities.  Rothbard heralded this as a tremendous strength of "anarcho-capitalist" theory, in that within that theory, one could accommodate any number of alternate social-arrangements, so long as they remained voluntary in association of individual members; while in say, an "communist" world, other social/economic arrangements would not be "permitted".  The anarcho-capitalist would permit any social/economic arrangement, so long as no individuals human/natural-rights were violated (no use of initiation of violence, coercion, theft, etc).  Such that, if such a "socialist" community were to form voluntarily, and any individual member could "opt out" at any time (contract-theory could very well come into play here, but I won't get into that very deep-subject unless it is a subject of interest).

"What if the wealthy then get together and organize their forces to prevent or roll back rebellion, or at least to provide each other with a sort of mutual insurance against revolt?" Perhaps, I'm not entirely certain as to the hypothetical you which to suggest here; Rothbard thought that insurance businesses would have a large role to play in an "anarcho-capitalist" society, in that they could function not only as mutual-loss compensation but also mutual-loss prevention agencies.  Rothbard thought that insurance companies, having a great interest in loss-prevention (as the might be liable on their client's behalf) that insurance businesses take up the role of community security services as a loss-prevention strategy.

3. "Would an anarcho-capitalist country (or autonomous area, or whatever you want to call it) be able to organize sufficient force to defend from outside attack by other nations?"
When looking at issues of "national defense" it is important to see why that "national defense" is necessary; because a harm to any part of the whole is considered a direct attack upon the whole.  "National defense" is necessary, because "nations" will often attack parts of other "nations" and then there is a natural desire for retaliation; however, if Bob attacks Tom, Tom isn't likely to want to attack Jim in retaliation, for that does nothing to return the violation to Bob; however when Bob the "American" attacks Tom the "Afghan" then Tom the "Afghan" might be willing to attack any "American" as if it were Bob.  Therefore, autonomous-individuals have need of much less "national defense" because they are not "represented" nor do they "represent" a "nation" that may draw them into a conflict for which they have no personal interest in.
Would another "nation" perhaps wish to attack an autonomous region in order to gain resources? Perhaps, but such a "resource theft" would likely be unprofitable, as each person would need to be "conquered" individually, as there is no central-military organization that can be made to "surrender"; such a "nation" would have the same problem the "United States" has currently in "Afghanistan" or had in "Vietnam".  In "anarcho-capitalist" theory, people would again, likely through insurance businesses or something similar, have corporate-ability to provide for security and defense; these factors combined make it unlikely, that an "autonomous region" could be an economically viable target for a neighboring "nation".  On the subjects of nuclear weapons, I suppose such a "autonomous region" would be vulnerable to such an attack, however, pretty much any place in the world could be vulnerable to such an attack; nuclear weapons, especially those with intercontinental ballistic delivery mechanisms are fairly expensive, what is the "pay-off" for nuking an "autonomous region"? I do not think that there is any good "pay-off" or benefit to a "nation" for doing so, and yet, I can think of many reasons why this would be unwise/detrimental to the "nation's" "national interest", such as making all other "nations" suspicious and threatened by the nuclear-using "nation's" attack.

Hopefully this fielded this inquiry/objection, as well. Let me know if you have further interest. :-)

Post Script: Regarding topic (3.) since, "anarcho-capitalists" are specifically against the "initiation of force", nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used or even possessed by any person or organization that has the ethical prohibition of "no initiation of force"; the "anarcho-capitalist" believes that violence may only be justified in self-defense or agreed-upon-defense of some original initiation of force; that to use violence in excess of that defense (such as using a firearm in a lethal way to stop someone from a petty theft) or  to use violence to such excess that it endangers innocent parties (like using a nuclear bomb in "defense") would be considered as *new" initiations of force and could not be ethically justified. In retrospect, I thought that might be an important feature of "anarcho-capitalist" ethics in relation to this topic.

[I'm including my later correspondence with Andrew Hartwell here:] 

Jacob S.Yesterday 11:24 PMEdit
+Andrew Hartwell Thank you for your reply and your expression of appreciation of the Thoreau avatar; as I may have mentioned, I do not self-identify as "Anarcho-Captialist" as I'm personally, not entirely in agreement with Anarcho-Captialism but I find myself having a lot of general concordance/agreement with much of Anarcho-Capitalist theory.

As you seem to be mostly interested in Anarcho-Capitalism, I will attempt to phrase my responses in the voice of the "Anarcho-Capitalist", though, I might personally differ in my own approach.
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.Yesterday 11:26 PMEdit
+Andrew Hartwell  “I consider any attempt to create a blueprint for a society towards which we should strive to be utopian, particularly when that blueprint is an idealized society which has never existed.”

The Anarcho-Capitalist might be inclined to deny that their particular theories indicate a “blueprint” for a society; they would rather characterize their theory, as first and foremost, founded upon an ethical theory which has economic & political implications. Rothbard on numerous occasions, reminded his readers that neither he nor any one else had crystal-ball knowledge on how such a society would actually solve “social problems” (no blueprint) but that rather, he offers his own theories as to what such a society might look like, only because of the high-demand of many to have some kind of picture or idea of how individuals acting voluntarily might cooperate in the marketplace to solve “problems”/needs. Additionally, the anarcho-capitalist would make no claims that crime would disappear (as I believe Marx may have theorized that as the end result of historical determination & communism) or any other possibilities for individuals acting unethically; the anarcho-capitalist would only suggest that crime may in fact be minimized as a function of many “crimes”, being considered within an “anarcho-capitalist” society to be not crimes at all (which might reduce the current prison population by something in the order of 50-70% as nearly half of all incarcerated persons in the “USA” are incarcerated for illicit drug-related charges alone and this would not include tax-evasion, prostitution, etc.), there would be significantly less “crime” as well, because free-market security services may be more incentivized to protect their customers, as they would have to compete with other security services (coercive-monopolies being less economically efficient/productive/effective than free-market services).

Additionally, the A-C might point out that any interaction between persons which is mutually voluntary and consensual possesses the essential characteristics of the A-C theory, and therefore, A-C already exists in large extent across most social interactions currently; wherever force, coercion, theft are absent, wherever life, liberty, property are respected, there is an “anarchic” relationship. Therefore it is not that society must be completely reformed, it is that the bulk of private social interactions should be made consistent with those public/political interactions which do not respect life, liberty or property.

For these reasons, and probably a few more that I am neglecting, the anarcho-capitalist would probably deny the assertion that they hold a “utopian” ideal; to suggest that they do, the A-C might say, implies that violence, coercion and theft are necessary for society to function, for people to be happy; and the A-C would find that implication to be not only counter-intuitive (“peace through war” “double-speak”) it would deny that in common experience, most persons usually do not initiate aggression upon one another and that that lack of initiation of aggression would seem to be to the benefit of all.
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.Yesterday 11:48 PMEdit
+Andrew Hartwell "in an AnCap society, could a person sign a contract that sold themselves into a lifetime of slavery, assuming there was no coercion involved in the initial agreement?  If not, why not?"

It is an interesting question; I believe Rothbard addressed this issue as well.  His response that it was not techinically possible (without some form of mind-control device presumably) to sell one's own body into slavery, because the seller would be attempting to sell what he could not produce (a mindless robot body) and what the buyer could not in reality buy.  The seller/proposed-slave would still possess their consciousness within their own body, as such, could decide to break from the slavery-contract at any time (contracts being only "enforceable" in terms of real-damages: detrimental reliance and fraud). Therefore, no buyer, in an A-C theory would likely buy a "slave" (accept a voluntary offer for sale of the person's own self/body) knowing that as long as the person lived as a rational-being, they could extricate themselves from the contract, and while detrimental reliance /may/ play a role for "damages" (even this would be hard to argue for, knowing in advance the problems with this kind of contract), fraud would not likely be plausible in a case of independent arbitration, as there would be a reasonable expectation that the buyer would know the risk of such a contract/agreement.  Therefore, the price of a "slave" would be reduced to such a low price, (because the buyers would be aware for the risk of later extrication) that it would not be enough incentive for the seller to sell themselves into slavery, nor the buyers to buy.

If you want to get really crazy with the hypothetical, I suppose it would be possible to sell one's own body, after death; though I'm not sure that there is a high-demand for such a "product".

Hope that helps. :-)
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.Yesterday 11:54 PMEdit
+Andrew Hartwell "How many of these have really been tried?  What is the highest position to which an AnCap has been elected?"

I imagine that most AnCap inclined persons are politically active under the "libertarian" or perhaps "Libertarian" banner (largest third-party)... so I guess the answer to your question would be ... congressman?
Jacob S.12:30 AM (edited)Edit
+Andrew Hartwell "And anyway, isn’t an anarchist running for political office an inherently hypocritical act because it legitimizes the state?"
Personally I do not prefer to take the "political activism" approach; but many AnCaps feel that it is a legitimate act of self-defense within the context of the coercive-quagmire they find themselves in:
If voting and running for office, were legitimate acts of self-defense, an if it would be a response of force in measure to the initial aggression and if it would create no new initiations of aggression, then in An-Cap theory this "political activism" approach would not be hypocrisy, but those are some pretty sizable "if"s...
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.12:38 AMEdit
+Andrew Hartwell  "As far as the state embodying violence, it is worth noting that violence in modern states is far decreased from where it was in the stateless period of the “noble savage,”..."

Certainly, there could be instances of "primitive" cultures in which permitted/"legitimized" the same kinds of initiations of force, coercion, & theft as the State does contemporaneously; the AnCap might respond that this fact would in no way legitimize those actions then or now.  While primarily, the AnCap theory is critical of the modern State, this is only a function of the fact that AnCaps generally give in modern States; in theory, AnCap criticism would extend to any society that violated basic (inalienable) human-rights that they might describe as life, liberty or property.  If the State committed less violence, than in some arbitrarily denoted culture, this would not be ameliorating to the unethical behavior of that State; just as a rapist can not point to the murderer, as an excuse for his crimes.
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.12:52 AMEdit
+Andrew Hartwell  "There has also been great violence done by private entities with excessive power..."

AnCap criticism, is by no means limited to the State only, and an AnCap would have much criticism with "companies" such as British East India company; the AnCap might also respond with this, "How does the British East India Company, in its behavior to African and Asian people, be in essence different from a conqueror (illegitimate) or a State (illegitimate)?"  In sum and substance the BEIC was an arm or functionary of the British govt itself; (this is one of the places, where I will depart from the traditional "AnCap" voice; some AnCaps may have this view but not many) all corporations are merely extensions of the State itself; they are imbued with legal liability protections which shield them from loss, while providing them with great gains; the State benefits from the creation/authorization of corporations by being able, for the return of legal/liability protections, to tax the "income" generated by the corporation, essentially twice, once as "capital gains" and secondly as the "income" disbursed to corporation employees/beneficiaries.

 In either perspective, when examining "private" concerns, the AnCap analysis, is going to examine, how this "private" concern may violate individual-rights.  While the illegitimacy of the State is perhaps most noticable of AnCap concerns, fundementally their theory is an ethical one, which applies uniformly to "public" and "private" concerns.
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.1:06 AMEdit
+Andrew Hartwell "Say I own a private town in AC land where I provide all the services a state does in exchange for your labor and I pay you in scrip which you can use at any of the stores in town (which are all owned by me)..."

The AnCap would question, how was it that you came by such wealth, in your hypothetical, that you were to amass ownership of such a large contiguous land mass... did you do so coercively (by force or threat of force)? If so, then your "ownership" of this mass of wealth is no more legitimate that that of the State. If you amassed this giant property, by voluntary/consensual transactions, then why the sudden change of behavior?  Your hypothetical seems to draw parallels from various mining and railroad corporations of the North American West; in those cases, we have not only the political influences of those concerns, getting massive "land-grants" from the State, but also we have the problem of corporate legal/liability protection again.

Let's say, you amassed this wealth in a voluntary/consensual manner; you have legitimately purchased the entirety of this town-sized land mass and then rented some residential properties out to people; you could try to issue your own script, but who would want it if it had little value? Why would people move to your town if they knew you to be a person that they would prefer not to do business with? If you built a good reputation up to "trick" people, what is your incentive of destroying that reputation in order to exploit people?

AnCap economic theory would suggest that "natural monopolies" are exceedingly rare; the historic monopolies have always been "coercive monopolies", that is, they have taken advantage of the political means of the State to secure their monopoly and prevent competition.
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.1:29 AMEdit
+Andrew Hartwell  "The history of colonialism in Asia and Africa shows that states have been quite successful in the past at subjugating and exploiting areas with limited or diffuse central authority."

The AnCap might suggest that the technological differences that were the required conditions for Asian & African colonialism may have been the result of increased production available to those European States that permitted more historical freedom/liberty of the productive classes; that is to say, that the unique division/separation of power/force/coercion between the church and the State of European powers that was not to be found in Africa & Asia, provided a unique opportunity for the productive classes to produce more efficiently and create the technological innovation necessary for European conquest.  There may have been various geographical and historical conditions as well, but on the whole while African & Asian powers while generally "decentralized", there was sufficient oppression within the respective decentralized States/principalities/chiefdoms/etc to create less production within those political units to suppress economic production and innovation necessary to defend themselves against the more productive European powers which benefited from their economies. Of course, there were other functions at work, increased trade induced/supported by geographical features, unique historical events/persons etc...

It's getting late, and I'm realizing that I'm quite tired. I hope these responses have been sufficient to help you understand the AnCap position.  If you wish to know more, perhaps an actual AnCap could assist.

Many of your questions might be answered by reading "For a New Liberty" (which addresses more of the "How would an AnCap society work?" "Why would an AnCap society not get invaded?" kind of questions) and "Ethics of Liberty" (which would answer, "What is the ethical/philosophical theory of Anarcho-Capitalism?" kind of questions) by Murray Rothbard; the site is replete with AnCap resources as well (in fact, you can download free versions of Rothbard's books there).

These are dense volumes (but completely worth the time/reading investment), but Ludwig von Mises' book, "Human Action" and Rothbard's "Man, Economy & State" are a monumental works that would help with understanding AnCap economic theory (and you can get them free as pdf or whatnot from as well).

All the best,
Collapse this comment

Jacob S.12:08 PM (edited)Edit
+Noel Yap  You don't think Google has used coercive-political means to amass wealth? Do they induce the State to enforce copy-right?
  I inclined to think that any invocation of the State to enforce copyright, is the use of coercive political-means to create coercive monopoly over the ideas able to be expressed by other persons; something on the order of, "If you emulate our ideas or algorithms, we will induce the State to enforce our coercive-monopoly of our ideas, by having the State extort/steal your property, in order to pay us 'damages'."

I am inclined to think that currently, most IT companies exist only through coercive monopolistic enforcement of 'copy-right' and 'intellectual property'.  There is a certain sense in which it would be difficult to compete if your competitors were able to use 'copy-right' and yet you, yourself, because of your integrity, declined to do so... but I'm not entirely sure... there are a lot of "open-source" products out there... maybe someone more knowledgeable than I on these matters could enlighten us as to the economics of 'intellectual property', coercive-monopolies and the IT industry...
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.12:07 PM (edited)Edit
+Noel Yap  I find it dubious that a true anarchist could run for political office with her integrity intact... it would be like joining a criminal-syndicate (Mafia or Yakuza) because one objects to the existence of criminal-syndicates... I don't know, that one doesn't compute for me.  Even if one was to reduce the over-all criminality of such a criminal-syndicate, this is a utilitarian defense (the greatest good, for the greatest number), and not generally in keeping with the ethical-universality/absolutism generally held by anarchists.  If just one person's rights were violated by the anarchist's political-office (if even a small amount of property, would be extorted in order to keep and maintain that office, even if she accepted no payment/salary) it would seem that the holding of political-office by the anarchist would contradict the ethical values held by most anarchists.
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.12:56 PM (edited)Edit
+Andrew Hartwell I'll address this last objection, since upon a second reading, you expressed this was a "big issue I have with AC":
"Even if most people in the AC world follow the non-initiation rule most of the time, what happens when they don’t?  Especially if they are rich enough to buy off or fight off attempts by a private firm to penalize them for infringing on others’ rights; ie if a highly wealthy individual stole your wife or something and you are so poor you only have the lowest level of contracted private security, what stops the rich guy from simply offering them more than you paid in exchange for them forgetting about it?"

A lot of AnCap economic theory comes into play here; while the AnCap holds the non-initiation of aggression principle as an ethical principle, they are also quick to note, that not only is such a principle ethical, but it is economically-productive as well (most conducive, in principle, to satisfy the greatest amount of human-need/preference/satisfaction).  In AnCap economic theory, as opposed to many other economic theories, espouses a subjective theory of value; that is to say, that each person has unique/subjective preferences on how they anticipate being able to satisfy, "felt uneasiness"/dissatisfaction; that people act, because they anticipate their actions will satisfy their needs/preferences/values; because each person's needs/preferences/values are subjective, different people will have different needs/preferences/values at different degrees at different times; whenever an exchange occurs, the conditions for the exchange are such, that both parties find themselves having different subjective needs/preferences/values, such that, given the exchange takes place, both parties anticipate that the exchange will satisfy them; in other words, in every exchange, both parties expect to be benefited/more-satisfied than they expect to be if the exchange does not take place.  Every voluntary exchange therefore, creates an anticipated increase in the net amount of human-satisfaction/needs-meeting.  Counterwise, every coercive-exchange only benefits one party, at the expense of another; a net decrease in the amount of satisfaction/needs-meeting.

That said, it is not that everyone in an AnCap society, would always follow the NAP, but that they are highly incentivzed not to violate it, because the costs of coercive acts are generally greater that the potential gains to be had; the State embarks in coercive-action, only because it can externalize the costs on others; a place can be invaded, a minority can be oppressed because the costs of such are externalized by the coercive-institution.  The net-satisfaction of all of these acts is always decreased.  Therefore, without the ability to externalize costs via a coercive institution (the State) a "rich man" wishing to steal another person (the "wife") bears all of the costs of this act of aggression, which would probably be much higher than other voluntary measures (purchasing the services of a prostitute, etc).

Does this explanation clarify the AnCap perspective, on why they might think that such actions are likely to be uncommon/rare?
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.12:53 PMEdit
+Noel Yap In an "anarchist" society, would you be in agreement, that if some people wanted to voluntarily gather together for the purposes of forming a "government", that the act of voluntarily forming a "government" (similar to the principle behind a Home-Owners-Association) would be in no-ways contradictory with "anarchist" principles?

I will assume that you would be in agreement; if you were, then to a certain extent, is not the "anarchist" political candidate, using the coercion of the State, denying those people, the social-voluntary-agreement that they would voluntarily assent to in an "anarchist" society?  I would be in agreement with you that (but just because we would be in agreement that there would be net-gain, that doesn't necessitate that there actually would be net-gain), there IS a net-gain, that those who would object to coercive-laws and are forced to involuntarily participate would be eased of their oppression, yet, at the same time, some people would voluntarily submit to these laws and would prefer to social-organize in this way, and this places the anarchist in a no-win position.  The political-means, seems to me in the least, to inevitably deny /someone/ their right to voluntary-association.  I'm inclined to think that the only consistent position for the anarchist, is to argue for the complete/entire abolition of the State, and the coercive-institution of the State is purposefully designed to deny any such explicitly-stated radical notion from approaching political-office.  Political office would inevitable/necessarily put the anarchist in a position of compromising their values for some perceived "greater good" which is exactly the kind of dangerous reasoning (because no person has omniscient awareness of the subjective preferences/values/needs of all persons) that the State uses to illegitimately justify its own existence.

One of the significant philosophical problems with utilitarian arguments, is that no person has full/complete knowledge of how their actions will influence/affect the future; our "anarchist" politician, may unbeknownst to her, actually extend the life of the State because her policy recommendations and voting-down coercive legislation, might in fact extend the financial viability of the remaining coercive measures; in this case, the "anarchist" politician, wishes to increase the net-good of all persons, may have in effect, decreased that net-good.  Which is why I find utilitarian justifications for such measures to be imprudent/unwise...
Collapse this comment
Jacob S.3:42 PM (edited)Edit
+Andrew Hartwell  One further note: AnCap economic theory would generally expect to see a much greater equalization of wealth than we may experience today; that large capital accumulations much less likely to occur in AnCap-ism, except for specific production purposes (taking advantage of economies of scale); the indolent wealthy are an unlikely occurrence in AnCap society, because there are no barriers to market competition, meaning the appropriation of capital away from capital-production forces for the purposes of enriching a few, would create a less competitive condition for the business that would do so, than those that would use excess capital for reinvestment in factors of production.  Each voluntary transaction, having the anticipated effect of benefiting both parties, the AnCap would surmise that those currently in "poverty" would be substantially better off and those that are extraordinarily "wealthy" today would quickly find themselves less competitive under absolute free-market conditions and those "wealthy" would likely become less so; hence the AnCap would expect under voluntary/non-coercive market conditions a much greater distribution of "wealth" or satisfaction.
Collapse this comment

No comments:

Post a Comment