Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator
It was what he meant and said. Maybe I am merely mixing up some specific idea of "ACland" with "anarchy" because you can have the absence of a state. Do ACers think the state is necessary before people have these values, or that it is better than anarchy at least?
But you still have the problem with what the terms coercion and self-defense mean. These terms are not self-evidently one thing or another. We all have a general idea what they mean, I don't mean the words have no meaning... but specifically you have a lot of difference of opinion. Same problem exists in the state ldo and also leads to internal conflict or civil war.
Sorry if I keep going off into tangents, just streaming ideas as they pop in my mind.
Edit: People have to stop saying "X won't happen in ACland" but admit that it will, the difference being that solving for X is a much simpler and efficient task. Then we have to decide if this is actually true or not for issues like justice, defense, the "problem" areas. Presupposing that it is better does no good.
Anarchy is obviously preferable. Anarcho-communism fails the same economic test as Marxism/socialism. You will hear it time and time again, the "calculation problem". Anarcho-communism would need an extremely strong grip on society's opinion because it will result in a return to primitive living and/or massive death. It is assumed that markets would prevail because we largely prefer being able to live in the modern industrial/technological world. The huge problem first is educating enough people that the state is wrong, or inherently corrupt, whatever.
I don't see what is so hard to understand about defining initiation of aggression.
We have no real interest in if someone wants to shoot dope or sell their body other than, they really want to do it and it isn't harming others. We can say that drugs and most things considered vices will be legal. Interfering with these trades would be viewed as thievery/aggression. Modern libertarianism/AC is a fairly young movement, so it will take a while for people to get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies
Well, there have been many times in history where the state has broken down and a period of anarchy has ensued. But what generally happens is that because the initial void created by the sudden collapse of the state is a very tumultuous time, it is quite easy for another group to seize power and create a new state. THIS, is obviously not what ACers want yet that period is certainly called "anarchy."
So two things then need to happen for stateland to become ACland. First, many many people need to believe in the voluntarist philosophy. Second, these people need to be ready when the state falls to step in and offer the goods and services the state had a monopoly on right away so as to ease the transition. If people can see a viable alternative, they won't rush to create a new state (which is what seems to usually happen).
I think just having enough people believing in ACland will ease the transition and get people excited about the possibility of it that entrepreneurs will rush in and fill the gaps left by the state.
People don't necessarily have to believe in full on anarchy for progress to be made. I know I have linked the Rothbard piece about sectarianism vs. gradualism several times. I read certain parts of this literally dozens of times before I adopted AC to try to rectify some things in my head.
Once we get through talking about the full implications of going to a stateless society, we can talk about a strategy for victory. A lot of economic and political systems we have now are just unsustainable. Hoppe's theory of micro-secession seems pretty good. We don't really need 51% of the world to be full believers, just little areas becoming more and more libertarian. You can see states or small localities refusing bailout money as little steps towards that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rube
BUT, J Neil Shulman wrote a book about this called Alongside Night where he sees another step that needs to take place. The writing is atrocious and he kind of goes to some pretty interesting extremes (which gets the book labeled Sci-Fi), but the idea is that "moral" ACists create an underground economy (counter-economics) that offer "illegal" private defense, private courts, private currency, and any other items you want to sell and trade using sound money and tax-free. This way, when the state does collapse, there will already by an economy in place to ease the transition.
It might be a bit of a stretch but it's still an interesting idea.
That is called agorism. I haven't read anything about it in a while, and don't have time to read this blog/link within.
http://libertariananarchy.com/2008/1...tellectualism/
Quote:
Originally Posted by rube
..
That said, I think a big part of us seeming to not want to keep discussing a lot of things like roads is because new people keep coming and asking what seems to some like "old" questions and many don't feel like answering the same things over and over again. It isn't that the questions aren't valid or interesting, it's just that it is so much easier to offer one liners than to get into long massive debates every time somebody asks about ACland.
This is why this book is good. It lays out the basics pretty well. If people refuse to look at reality, so be it. We forge on. There is always progress to be made, but probably 99% of the objections on this forum have been dealt with in detail already. It is hard to envision anything different than what we are raised to believe. It took me a while and I think I am relatively open minded. Block mentioned in another excerpt on mises.org today, from his new 494 page book on privatization of roads, that people make a breakthrough in learning in different ways. Some through a teacher, or a novel like Ayn Rand's, or maybe this book, or serious debate, or as there is some evidence of, through this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone
The problem that it is unprofitable to catch and prosecute petty thieves in ACland is not really a problem. If the frequency of petty theft starts to get out of control, the defense firms will be forced to begin investigating and prosecuting these crimes at a loss and will have to make up the losses with higher fees, etc. Eventually society will reach an equilibrium point of petty theft vs. enforcement level. That level of theft will probably be lower than it is today (as other posters have mentioned, cops don't do much at all to stop petty theft today.)
It should be kept in mind the full scope of restitution under libertarian law. The victim is owed the candy bar stolen and another from the thief, or equivalent value from his possessions. The "costs of capture" is not only catching the shoplifter, but everything deemed necessary to "recapture the victim's loss". I suspect that most people like myself prefer to be protected without being trained as police and such. We agree with a company to have them carry out recapturing our assets, in return for these costs of capture + something like a monthly premium.
The amount of cases resulting in a loss that security companies need to worry about ought to be relatively small. First of all, they open themselves up to liability by arresting or prosecuting people who are innocent. It is sensible to believe that most/all companies who want to be profitable would have agreements with their customers that they will turn on their own customers for making false accusations. They want to "make the victim whole" in the fastest time possible. You want your car returned quickly when stolen right? The company can still reclaim its costs for imprisonment as the "costs of capture" element in restitution.
Let's ignore petty theft for a moment and think petty assault. You get in a bar fight or catch your wife cheating on you and get in some good hits before the guy escapes. Fabio calls 225 and you are quickly picked up. Do you have any defense like it being a "crime of passion"? Probably not, but I wonder if anyone can pick out the mitigating circumstances. In whatever case we can assume you have done wrong and given someone a black eye. Fabio is right to give you 2 black eyes and you owe something like $200 for police costs.
If the truth was that you were acting in self defense, your own security firm will come to bat for you. I haven't needed to call the cops for years but when I do, I prefer they handle things and come to my aid. If there is sufficient evidence, like witnesses or videotapes, that you were in the wrong it is not in your own security firm's interest to defend you at all costs. They will have their own guidelines, and you will have already agreed to your own firm's detectives or internal arbitrator's decisions guiding their actions as your agent.
They may lose you as a customer for not defending your bullying, but we hope they gain credibility in general for not doing such things. By not agreeing to cooperate with the victim's firm (and we can assume both firms have a sort of treaty saying punching people is wrong) you now lose "crime rating" and will have a harder time getting anyone to defend you.
Your agreement may include an element of insurance too. Say Fabio wants $20,000 in return for your initiation of aggression and not giving you a black eye back in addition. You don't have to agree to this. You can choose to get 2 black eyes and not pay. He might demand way more than $20K, but he would never be right to expropriate that arbitrary amount from you because we are talking about a fight not money being stolen. Fabio gets no tangible gain from punching you, so he may be willing to bargain down to $5,000. Maybe your insurance element kicks in and your firm pays the $5K + extra costs. We can't say a perfect dollar amount, only the proper maximum punishment within the boundaries of the actual criminal actions committed.
For insurance companies attached to security firms to make a profit, they need to evaluate customers and assign risk. Getting in fistfights will raise your premium. Peaceful people will pay less for defense. It isn't in their own best interest to literally wage war against other companies that follow the same basic principals as their larger customer base, like thievery/rape/murder is wrong.
The angry husband can cut ties with his own firm. He could even refuse to agree to any arbitrator because in his mind it is okay to punch people whenever he feels like it. He may decide to take the 2 black eyes, pay the $200 arrest fee and be on his way. (He be asked to satisfy the yet unexplained 'terror premium' as well but this doesn't necessarily cost money). There are a lot of ways all these different crimes can play out, but I feel safe assuming that crime would be deterred better in this system than in state systems.
Let's go back to petty theft in the stateless society. When currently illegal drugs cost a true market price, we can assume that a lot of need for petty theft or gang warfare will decrease. There is no need to fight over corners to sling $10 crack rocks or shoplift to pay for them, when there is available employment for drug users and stores selling 3 "$10 rocks" for $1 in every neighborhood. There will still be theft, but it is silly to think security firms can't recoup their costs in many situations.
Say someone is just dead broke for whatever reason. He goes and robs a store for $1,000 and spends it on hookers and blow. Even if he still has a year's premiums paid to his own security firm, let's assume that the evidence is damning and nobody wants to defend his theft. The victim's firm may be fine with using a third party court to get restitution because they trust that a similar judgment (stealing $1K is wrong) will be handed down.
If the thief is uncooperative, the victim's firm will seek judgment wherever it sees fit. It will be right to imprison the thief until he can repay the $2,000 he owes along with mounting costs of recapturing the debt owed. If the firm can secure a contract to have its prisoners pick fruit or trash from streets, it is allowed for the prisoner to earn a standard wage and restitution be made. The private prison doesn't owe it to the thief to keep him fed and healthy, sitting in a cell watching cable TV and doing nothing all day though. If the criminal can only earn $40/day, he may be living a $5/day "bread and water" existence in a cell with no bed.
It would be possible for there to be totally uncooperative prisoners ("the gangster"). At some point the private firm will decide to write off their losses though. Funding prison guards that have to deal with some guy who does nothing but flip out every day is not profitable. I haven't yet thought of a reason that throwing someone in a Prison Break type jail as a last resort violates libertarian law. Either way, the tactic used historically was to ostracize these people from the community.
