When markets deliver justice

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Anarcho-capitalists rejoice! Justice in Somalia continues to be delivered by courts operating in a free market instead of an evil, oppressive government. Another victory for freedom and liberty!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8347216.stm

Islamists in southern Somalia have stoned a man to death for adultery but spared his pregnant girlfriend until she gives birth.
Abas Hussein Abdirahman, 33, was killed in front of a crowd of some 300 people in the port town of Merka.
An official from the al-Shabab group said the woman would be killed after she has had her baby.
Islamist groups run much of southern Somalia, while the UN-backed government only control parts of the capital.
This is the third time Islamists have stoned a person to death for adultery in the past year.
Al-Shabab official Sheikh Suldan Aala Mohamed said Mr Abdirahman had confessed to adultery before an Islamic court.
"He was screaming and blood was pouring from his head during the stoning. After seven minutes he stopped moving," an eyewitness told the BBC.
The BBC's Mohammed Olad Hassan in Mogadishu says that if the woman is also killed, her baby would be given to relatives to look after.

[Havet]

When Governments deliver justice...


Iran sentences woman to death by stoning for adultery http://www.iranfocus.com/en/templates/ef_live2/images/pdf_button.png (http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=4006) http://www.iranfocus.com/en/templates/ef_live2/images/printButton.png (http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4006&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=28) http://www.iranfocus.com/en/templates/ef_live2/images/emailButton.png (http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=4006&itemid=28) Friday, 14 October 2005 Iran Focus

http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/img41c84b59d527e.jpgTehran, Iran, Oct. 15 – A court in Iran sentenced a woman to death by stoning for adultery and an Afghan man to execution and 100 lashes on charges of murder, a state-run daily reported on Saturday.

The woman, identified by her first name Soqra, was accused of adultery and aiding the Afghan man, identified as Alireza, in the murder of her husband, also from Afghanistan. Soqra maintained her innocence throughout the trial, according to the daily Etemaad.

A Tehran court sentenced Soqra to be stoned to death for adultery and she also received a 15-year jail sentence for her part in the murder, while, Alireza was sentenced to death for the murder and to 100 lashes for adultery, while, Etemaad reported.

Her son testified that he had witnessed the Afghan man commit the murder.

Soqra had said that her parents had forced her to marry an Afghan man against her will. The pair had two children and Soqra said that her husband beat her repeatedly.

Alireza was found guilty of stabbing to death Soqra’s husband. The two ran away from Tehran to the central city of Isfahan after the murder, but were arrested several days later.

See how useless this kind of rhetoric is from both sides?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

See how useless this kind of rhetoric is from both sides?
No, actually, you've made an important point - that there is not a single fucking difference between government power and market power.

I'm not saying governments are better or somehow more "freedom-loving" than market agencies, hayenmill. I'm saying that governments and property owners have exactly the same kind of power over people.

[Havet]

No, actually, you've made an important point - that there is not a single fucking difference between government power and market power.

I'm not saying governments are better or somehow more "freedom-loving" than market agencies, hayenmill. I'm saying that governments and property owners have exactly the same kind of power over people.

Hmm...interesting

Of course, you (probably) expect this unfair power property owners have at Somalia to be existent in all forms of so called "free market", whereas I disagree (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765).

I truly believe one can have a free market, with a property system (not necessarily private property) which has no unfair power over people.

[Skooma Addict]

No, actually, you've made an important point - that there is not a single fucking difference between government power and market power.

I'm not saying governments are better or somehow more "freedom-loving" than market agencies, hayenmill. I'm saying that governments and property owners have exactly the same kind of power over people.

Kwisatz, do you really think that citing a single example of someone being killed in Somalia is supposed to prove something?

[Demogorgon]

When Governments deliver justice...



See how useless this kind of rhetoric is from both sides?

Well what KH says, plus of course Governments will practice some self restraint. The Iranian Government didn't actually carry out the stoning in question there for instance as there has been a long standing moratorium on stoning. Not to defend Iran because it still carries out executions by hanging and apparently occasionally by shooting but it has restrained itself with regards to stoning.

Markets by contrast simply lack the ability to restrain themselves in the way even a horrible Government like the one in Iran has done.

[Havet]

Kwisatz, do you really think that citing a single example of someone being killed in Somalia is supposed to prove something?

It's not really one example, is it?

Somalia, and other places which have a government, are filled with these "justice" barbaric actions.

[Havet]

Markets by contrast simply lack the ability to restrain themselves in the way even a horrible Government like the one in Iran has done.

I disagree, since I don't consider Somalia a free society, nor a society that would derive from basic necessary principles for freedom: equality of authority, equality of opportunity, etc

I mean, supposedly there isn't a government (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.mises.org/story/2701) except the one that supposedly is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_Federal_Government), and the UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNOSOM_I) and US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29#Mission_shift_to_na tion-building) and Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Somalia_%282006%E2%80%93present%29) were meddling in the region, and Somalia was essentially the poorest country on earth even when it had a state, thus Somalia being a wartorn shithole is no effective argument against anarchism or (true) free markets.

[Skooma Addict]

It's not really one example, is it?

Somalia, and other places which have a government, are filled with these "justice" barbaric actions.

Many areas of Somalia are very peaceful. Somalia is also far better off now than it was when it had a government. It is only certain parts of Somalia that are filled with these "barbaric" actions.

[Demogorgon]

There is another interesting thing in that market there. Apparently the same people forcing women to wear strict Islamic dress are the same ones who sell said clothes. In other words businessmen in the closest thing to an anarcho-capitalist paradise on Earth have hit upon the novel idea of using the threat of extreme violence on anybody who does not buy their products.

Interesting.

[Havet]

Many areas of Somalia are very peaceful. Somalia is also far better off now than it was when it had a government. It is only certain parts of Somalia that are filled with these "barbaric" actions.

Sure, they are very peaceful.

And others are extremely dangerous.

Either we judge each part individually or we refrain from making broad statements from the country overall.

[Demogorgon]

Many areas of Somalia are very peaceful. Somalia is also far better off now than it was when it had a government. It is only certain parts of Somalia that are filled with these "barbaric" actions.
Oh pull the other one. You do realise that any upward push in economic measurements (all very modest) in Somalia is due to minor improvements in Somaliland, the only part of the country with any kind of functioning Government?

The rest of the place is by and large an utter disaster.

[Bud Struggle]

Islamists in southern Somalia have stoned a man to death for adultery but spared his pregnant girlfriend until she gives birth.


Now that is one serious anti-abortion position though I would hesitate to call it pro-life. :)

[Devrim]

Many areas of Somalia are very peaceful...It is only certain parts of Somalia that are filled with these "barbaric" actions.

This is true. It is only certain parts of Somalia, which are suffering from the complete decomposition of society. Unfortunately for the inhabitants these areas tend to be the ones where people live. Parts of Somalia are virtually uninhabited, and you never hear of these sort of actions there.

Devrim

[Skooma Addict]

Sure, they are very peaceful.

And others are extremely dangerous.

Either we judge each part individually or we refrain from making broad statements from the country overall.

Other than Mogadishu, pretty much the entire country has been improving.

As for the Warlord situation.

"The basic problem confronting the Somalis is that voting democracy cannot work in a tribal or clan system, where any coercive political apparatus with power to tax and confer patronage is seen as a prize to be controlled for the benefit of one’s kindred. The presence or even the prospect, therefore, of a state apparatus keeps the country in continual agitation.

That explains the Somali “warlords.” These are warriors who gain their support within their tribes by holding out the promise that they will re-establish the state and control it in order to grant privileges to their kinsmen and prevent others from doing the same to them. In dismantling their state in 1991, the Somalis did not realize that the mere possibility of a future state would be enough, in the short term at least, to prevent peace from returning to their country. If the tribes could convincingly declare that their territory would remain forever stateless, no one would listen to these warriors and they would have no option but to place themselves again under the discipline of tribal customary law. The Somali nation would have neutralized its warlords."

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?ID=126

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Other than Mogadishu, pretty much the entire country has been improving.
The news story I posted (among many other similar examples) did not happen in Mogadishu.

And I'm sure large parts of Somalia are really peaceful. I mean, if you lived under the constant terror of being brutally murdered by your local capitalists the moment you broke any one of their insane laws (or refused to buy their products), I bet you'd be pretty damn peaceful too.


That explains the Somali “warlords.” These are warriors who gain their support within their tribes by holding out the promise that they will re-establish the state and control it in order to grant privileges to their kinsmen and prevent others from doing the same to them.
Wait - so you're saying that, in a society lacking a state, some people will try to establish a state for their own gain? I am shocked! After all, it's not like anything of this sort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ancient_Egypt) has ever happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer).

[Robert]

Surely I'm not the only one to think this incident says more about Islamic fundamentalism than it does about markets?

[Havet]

Now that is one serious anti-abortion position though I would hesitate to call it pro-life. :)

Oh my...

You didn't...:ohmy:

You did!

Shame on you, Bud :unsure:

[Havet]

Surely I'm not the only one to think this incident says more about Islamic fundamentalism than it does about markets?

Touché

[Skooma Addict]

The news story I posted (among many other similar examples) did not happen in Mogadishu.


Yea, there is still fighting going on in other places. The country is definitely not a paradise. It is just better than what it was before.



Wait - so you're saying that, in a society lacking a state, some people will try to establish a state for their own gain? I am shocked! After all, it's not like anything of this sort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ancient_Egypt) has ever happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer).


It depends on how the State was removed in the first place.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Surely I'm not the only one to think this incident says more about Islamic fundamentalism than it does about markets?
This is not about Islamic fundamentalism, it's about what people with guns do to people without guns when they can get away with it. And it's about markets because Somalia has a free market in "security services."

And yes, as Demogorgon observes, the Islamic fundamentalist groups who insist that women cover themselves from head to toe with special garments happen to be composed of the same people who sell those garments. The spirit of entrepreneurship strikes again!

[Havet]

This is not about Islamic fundamentalism, it's about what people with guns do to people without guns when they can get away with it. And it's about markets because Somalia has a free market in "security services."

How can it be a free market when some people (with guns) prevent the free exchange of goods and services of others (without guns), using force?

[Dejavu]

I fail to see how this has anything to do with markets. Am I missing something here? Are the Islamic courts working for profit? At the core of any ancap theory is property. How is property ownership at the core of what happened in the article?

Anyway, this seems rooted more in collectivist ideology than individualist ideology. Everyone is forced to live the way of Islam, only Islamic courts exist in these area, and I am certain that property ownership is arbitrarily dictated by Islamic leaders and religious creed, not market mechanisms. I'm willing to hear the argument and see the evidence that this is indeed the quintessential ancap society but if you're gonna make an argument against ancaps , read their theory first.

[Dejavu]

This is not about Islamic fundamentalism, it's about what people with guns do to people without guns when they can get away with it. And it's about markets because Somalia has a free market in "security services."

And yes, as Demogorgon observes, the Islamic fundamentalist groups who insist that women cover themselves from head to toe with special garments happen to be composed of the same people who sell those garments. The spirit of entrepreneurship strikes again!


You're shitting out straw men and you know it. Really, go read ancap theory again and come back. Don't just go by what you hear on these forums. I'm not in full agreement with ancaps but at least I understand the basics of their theory.

Tbh , I can easily invert this to 'Islamocommunism' Competition to Islamic law is forbidden , property ownership is according to Islamic collectivist creed, people who make stuff must do so in accordance with Islamic custom, entrepreneurship is disabled because the 'goods' to be produced are already centrally planned by enforcers of Islamic custom.

Not that I'm personally making this argument , but it shows how absurd yours is.

[Skooma Addict]

Anyone interested should read this study.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf

Here is just a small bit of the paper...

"This paper has explored the consequences of state collapse for a country that existed under the rule of a vampire state. Far from chaos and economic collapse, we find that Somalia is generally doing better than when it had a state. Basic economic order is possible because of the existence of a common law dispute resolution system and a non-state monetary system. On that foundation we find that urban business and commercial activity is possible and that the pastoral sector has expanded. This paper’s main contribution to the literature on Somalia’s living standards has been to compare them to those of 42 other sub-Saharan African countries both before and after the collapse of the national government. We find that Somalia’s living standards have improved generally and that they compare relatively favorably with many existing African states."

[Demogorgon]

You're shitting out straw men and you know it. Really, go read ancap theory again and come back. Don't just go by what you hear on these forums. I'm not in full agreement with ancaps but at least I understand the basics of their theory.

Tbh , I can easily invert this to 'Islamocommunism' Competition to Islamic law is forbidden , property ownership is according to Islamic collectivist creed, people who make stuff must do so in accordance with Islamic custom, entrepreneurship is disabled because the 'goods' to be produced are already centrally planned by enforcers of Islamic custom.

Not that I'm personally making this argument , but it shows how absurd yours is.
The reason he is doing this is firstly because on Mises.com they actually point to Somalia as a positive example of the sort of thing they propose and secondly because he is arguing that this is happening with no Government involvement, rather through private groups. The extension of this is that regardless of what anarcho-capitalists would like to happen, this is what will happen.

[Skooma Addict]

The reason he is doing this is firstly because on Mises.com they actually point to Somalia as a positive example of the sort of thing they propose and secondly because he is arguing that this is happening with no Government involvement, rather through private groups. The extension of this is that regardless of what anarcho-capitalists would like to happen, this is what will happen.

Who is "they?"

[Demogorgon]

Who is "they?"Individuals who have written articles for it, presumably reflecting the site owners views, and posters on the forums.

[Havet]

Who is "they?"

I suppose these (http://mises.org/story/2066) "they"

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How can it be a free market when some people (with guns) prevent the free exchange of goods and services of others (without guns), using force?
It's a free market because there is no state. There is no entity with any kind of monopoly on the use of force.

Sure, lots of people still use force to do various things, but no one has any monopoly on it. As such, according to the libertarian definition of the state, none of those armed gangs represent a state. And - again according to libertarian theory - any place that lacks a state is by definition a free market.

If you think the above definitions are all very stupid (which they are), take it up with the libertarians, not me.


You're shitting out straw men and you know it. Really, go read ancap theory again and come back. Don't just go by what you hear on these forums. I'm not in full agreement with ancaps but at least I understand the basics of their theory.
Basics of ancap theory:
1. A state is an entity with a monopoly over the use of force.
2. We need to smash the state while leaving all other institutions of present society (such as private ownership) intact.

Fact: In southern Somalia, there is no entity with a monopoly over the use of force. Private ownership, however, continues to exist.


I fail to see how this has anything to do with markets. Am I missing something here? Are the Islamic courts working for profit?
Yes. Yes they are. That's the whole point.

Also, just look at how Olaf is pathetically trying to defend those thugs. The idiots at Mises.org are openly endorsing Somalia as an example of an anarcho-capitalist society. That is why I brought this up. It's not a straw man - it's more like self-satire on the part of the ancaps.

[Skooma Addict]

Individuals who have written articles for it, presumably reflecting the site owners views, and posters on the forums.

It is generally a bad idea to assume that people who write articles for Mises.org reflect the views of the posters on the forums. Also, I do not recall anyone saying Somalia was a good example of Anarcho-Capitalism. Can you link me to an article from Mises.org where this is implied?

On a side note, if your going to say an AnCap society will always look like Somalia, then I will say a Communist Society will always look like the USSR, Communist China, or Pol Pots regime. If anything, my claim would be far more justified than yours.

[Havet]

It's a free market because there is no state. There is no entity with any kind of monopoly on the use of force.

Sure, lots of people still use force to do various things, but no one has any monopoly on it. As such, according to the libertarian definition of the state, none of those armed gangs represent a state. And - again according to libertarian theory - any place that lacks a state is by definition a free market.

If you think the above definitions are all very stupid (which they are), take it up with the libertarians, not me.

This is why i have a different definition (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-t112106/index.html?p=1480146#post1480146) of a State:

"A State is a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership"

Conversely, Libertarians do not have the monopoly on the definition of a State.

Anyway, by libertarian definition, absence of a State is not sufficient for the existence of a free market because, wow, a free market means the free exchange of goods and services. If that doesn't happen, then there's no free market, whether there's a State preventing that, a King, an institution, whatever.

[Demogorgon]

It is generally a bad idea to assume that people who write articles for Mises.org reflect the views of the posters on the forums. Also, I do not recall anyone saying Somalia was a good example of Anarcho-Capitalism. Can you link me to an article from Mises.org where this is implied?

On a side note, if your going to say an AnCap society will always look like Somalia, then I will say a Communist Society will always look like the USSR, Communist China, or Pol Pots regime. If anything, my claim would be far more justified than yours.
Hayenmill provided a link.

Anyway you could make that accusation against Communists and many do, but the problem is Communists have two answers. The first is that professed Socialists in power often didn't create anything like the USSR, they also came up with things like Social Democracy and whatnot. Certainly not what the aim was, but not a nightmarish result either.

The second answer is, that you can identify the problem with the Soviet Union (for convenience I will refer to it only, but take my comments to refer to all the states I mentioned) was that the Government was unaccountable to either the electorate or any other kind of worker's organisation or group. That meant there was nothing to stop its leaders from going on a power trip to benefit themselves. By ensuring any future Socialist Government is accountable and has clearly defined legal parameters to work within, that can be avoided.

Ancaps can't give an answer like that though, because there is no adaption that can be made to give an electorate control over powerful institutions without it ceasing to be anarcho-capitalism. See the problem?

[Skooma Addict]

I suppose these (http://mises.org/story/2066) "they"


I assume you read this article? I haven't read the whole thing. Can you tell me where in the article it says Somalia is a good example of Anarcho-Capitalism?


Also, just look at how Olaf is pathetically trying to defend those thugs. The idiots at Mises.org are openly endorsing Somalia as an example of an anarcho-capitalist society. That is why I brought this up. It's not a straw man - it's more like self-satire on the part of the ancaps.

Who endorses Somalia as an example of an Anarcho-Capitalist society? I am not defending anyone. I was just pointing out the fact that Somalia is better off now than it was when it had a government.

[Havet]

I assume you read this article? I haven't read the whole thing. Can you tell me where in the article it says Somalia is a good example of Anarcho-Capitalism?

It doesn't say Somalia is a good example of Anarcho-Capitalism

But it defends the customary law, practiced by the tribes and warlords...



Customary laws develop in a country like Somalia in the absence of a central legislating body. Rules "emerge spontaneously as people go about their daily business and try to solve the problems that occasionally arise in it without upsetting the patterns of cooperation on which they so heavily depend" (Van Notten, 15: 2005). Van Notten contends that the Somali customary law closely follows the natural law and therefore should be preserved.

The extended family is the core of Somali society. Families descended from common great grandparent form a jilib, the basic independent jural unit, and a number of jilibs in turn form a clan. Each family, jilib, and clan has its own judge, whose role is to facilitate the handling of disputes by deciding where the liability lies and what compensation should be paid. For example if a man is murdered, the murderer's clan gives the victim's clan one hundred camels (the blood price). Verdicts are widely discussed, and a judge who does not base his decision on norms prevailing in the community is unlikely to be asked to settle further disputes. Thus while a judge may form his own principles, his customers will decide his competence as a judge.

The family of the successful plaintiff can resort to self-help to enforce a payment, or the court can order the men of the community to do so. Every clansman is insured by his jilib. For instance, if A violates B's right and it is held that A should pay compensation to B, A's jilib will provide the compensation. Hence the jilib functions as "a safety net, venture capital, protection, and insurance" (Van Notten, 74: 2005).

If a clan member constantly violates others' rights and his jilib repeatedly pays compensation, the jilib can expel him. On the other hand, there is nothing to stop someone from leaving his jilib and joining another, if it will have him, or setting up his own. A person without a jilib is unthinkable, an outlaw, because he is not insured against liabilities he might incur toward others. Hence he loses all protection of the law.

Decisions are enforced and oaths taken in ways that may seem unsophisticated or odd, yet they are the custom and must be respected. If, for instance, the defendant refuses to comply with the verdict without appealing his case to a higher court, he can be tied to a tree covered with black ants until he agrees. When evidence is sketchy or lacking, several types of oaths are available. A strong oath is one that is repeated fifty times. Another type is a divorce oath. If a man testifies under divorce oath and it is later found that his testimony was false, his marriage becomes null and void.

Independent extended families being the basic social and economic unit does have its weaknesses. While clansmen are under no obligation to share their wealth with other clans, they must share it to a significant extent within the clan. Van Notten notes this as a drawback and states that the "law makes clansmen somewhat a prisoner of their clan." Since individuals differ in their productivity, it is inevitable that some family members will benefit from more successful members. In addition, as a way of promoting internal cohesion, extended families may foment animosity against other families. Van Notten also writes that foreigners are not recognized under Somali law unless they marry into a clan or come under the protection of a Somali patron.

[Skooma Addict]

Anyway you could make that accusation against Communists and many do, but the problem is Communists have two answers. The first is that professed Socialists in power often didn't create anything like the USSR, they also came up with things like Social Democracy and whatnot. Certainly not what the aim was, but not a nightmarish result either.

The USSR was a nightmare. Also, why have all these attempts at communism failed? What makes you think stuff like this won't happen every time?


The second answer is, that you can identify the problem with the Soviet Union (for convenience I will refer to it only, but take my comments to refer to all the states I mentioned) was that the Government was unaccountable to either the electorate or any other kind of worker's organisation or group. That meant there was nothing to stop its leaders from going on a power trip to benefit themselves. By ensuring any future Socialist Government is accountable and has clearly defined legal parameters to work within, that can be avoided.

What makes you think you will be able to achieve a government that will remain the way you intended it to be after it is created? As far as I know, this has never been done before.


Ancaps can't give an answer like that though, because there is no adaption that can be made to give an electorate control over powerful institutions without it ceasing to be anarcho-capitalism. See the problem?

No. I only see a problem with your reasoning. Most AnCaps know that whether or not a society will be peaceful without a state largely depends on how the state is eliminated, and what institutions are in place once the government is gone.

[Robert]

The USSR was a nightmare. Also, why have all these attempts at communism failed? What makes you think stuff like this won't happen every time?

Uh oh, here we go. It ain't gonna be pretty.:lol:

[Skooma Addict]

I was just showing how I can make objections that have nothing to do with Communist theory, and that they are no better than the claim that an AnCap society must look like Somalia. I don't intend to argue the point any further.

[Dejavu]

Basics of ancap theory:
1. A state is an entity with a monopoly over the use of force.
2. We need to smash the state while leaving all other institutions of present society (such as private ownership) intact.

Fact: In southern Somalia, there is no entity with a monopoly over the use of force. Private ownership, however, continues to exist.


Yes. Yes they are. That's the whole point.

Also, just look at how Olaf is pathetically trying to defend those thugs. The idiots at Mises.org are openly endorsing Somalia as an example of an anarcho-capitalist society. That is why I brought this up. It's not a straw man - it's more like self-satire on the part of the ancaps.

1. Depending on the Ancap , the argument against the state monopoly over the use of force is not for reasons of efficacy but rather for ethics. Its not like they are perfectly fine and like omgwtfbbq with smaller monopolies using coercion against other people.

2. Wrong. Read ancap theory and don't get your info from dogmatists on this forum. I will admit there are vulgar ancaps out there where its hard to tell the difference if they really want a form of feudalism/tribalism or markets but at the same time I find the same is true with some of the anarchist-communists that sound dogmatic and , frankly , dictatorial.

You might have some clowns on Mises.org that endorse Somalia like you would have clowns here that endorse North Korea but its a huge leap to say, therefore , Somalia is anarcho-capitalist because I could just as well call North Korea communist but then people would get frustrated and claim that I am strawmaning them.

Btw, 'Christian Communist,' if one makes an argument that some sectors of Somali society are better than previous conditions ( i.e. their old government) it doesn't mean they are 'endorsing' the system in place but rather pointing out a differece for which they do provide empirical evidence for. Very few people would claim that, therefore , Somalia is great.

[Dejavu]

I was just showing how I can make objections that have nothing to do with Communist theory, and that they are no better than the claim that an AnCap society must look like Somalia. I don't intend to argue the point any further.

The problem is , someone like the 'christian communist' won't offer a positive theory of his own. How, would a communist society handle violence? Is such brutality impossible in a communist society? How does it not turn into North Korea? Whats the deal?

All in all , it amounts to strawmaning anyone who supports property and free markets ( not just ancaps) without bothering to explain coherently how a system with no property and no markets would handle it and somehow achieve freedom.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The USSR was a nightmare.
The USSR was the best thing that ever happened to the people of Russia and the surrounding areas, in their entire history.


Also, why have all these attempts at communism failed? What makes you think stuff like this won't happen every time?
Why have all attempts at laissez-faire capitalism failed? Why don't we live in a laissez-faire society today? What makes you think the state won't just re-assert itself every time?

According to Marxism, it has only been possible to create a socialist society for the past 150 years, at most (some would say less than 100 years). So we've had 100-150 years of failure. Ok.

But according to Austrian Economics, laissez-faire capitalism is always possible, and it is always the best economic system, in any conditions. Yet no one has been able to maintain such a system - let alone export it to the whole world - since the dawn of human civilization. You've got a whopping 5000 years of failure. How is it that the most efficient economic system imaginable to man hasn't already out-competed every other system and established itself across the world in all that time? How is it that the most efficient economic system imaginable to man can't seem to get a foothold anywhere for any extended period of time? What's been going on for the past 5000 years? Explain that before you ask us to explain our record.

I hereby proclaim the Fermi Paradox of Economics: If there exists an economic system that is absolutely superior to all others, in any conditions, why hasn't that system taken over the whole world by now?

[Skooma Addict]

The USSR was the best thing that ever happened to the people of Russia and the surrounding areas, in their entire history.

What about the USSR under Stalin?


Why have all attempts at laissez-faire capitalism failed?

There have been laissez-faire reforms in the past that have been very successful.


According to Marxism, it has only been possible to create a socialist society for the past 150 years, at most (some would say less than 100 years). So we've had 100-150 years of failure. Ok.

Ok, and why are we supposed to believe this?


But according to Austrian Economics, laissez-faire capitalism is always possible, and it is always the best economic system, in any conditions. Yet no one has been able to maintain such a system - let alone export it to the whole world - since the dawn of human civilization. You've got a whopping 5000 years of failure. How is it that the most efficient economic system imaginable to man hasn't already out-competed every other system and established itself across the world in all that time? How is it that the most efficient economic system imaginable to man can't seem to get a foothold anywhere for any extended period of time? What's been going on for the past 5000 years? Explain that before you ask us to explain our record.

Just because an AnCap society has never been fully implemented doesn't mean it is somehow a bad or failed ideology. I am actually unaware of any serious attempts to create an AnCap society. Also, you claim that it has only been possible to create a socialist society in the past 150 years, but I see no reason to believe this.

[Demogorgon]

The USSR was a nightmare. Also, why have all these attempts at communism failed? What makes you think stuff like this won't happen every time?

That has nothing to do with what I said. What I said was that often when socialists set out to change things they frequently ended up with social democracy instead. Indeed that's what always happened in developed countries, dictatorships didn't occur. So what you should be asking me is not what makes me think a dictatorship will not happen but what makes me think we won't end up simply making changes to the present system. Which would be a reasonable question and one I would answer by demonstrating how various policies would be different from previous reformist social democrats, but at the end of the day while simply repeating their past actions would be, from our perspective a failure, it would not be a dictatorship. Those social democracies invariably had the best human rights records in the world after all.


What makes you think you will be able to achieve a government that will remain the way you intended it to be after it is created? As far as I know, this has never been done before.

If you are asking me what makes me think a socialist Government will simply remain frozen in time then I answer by telling you not to be stupid, of course it will evolve. My argument is that so long as it remains under the control of the electorate (complete with as much direct democracy as reasonably possible) and must act in accordance with an entrenched (socialist) constitution and bill of rights it will not become a dictatorship.


No. I only see a problem with your reasoning. Most AnCaps know that whether or not a society will be peaceful without a state largely depends on how the state is eliminated, and what institutions are in place once the government is gone.That is a cop out. Even if somehow a state were to be eliminated according to some pie in the sky model proposed by ancaps, what is there to stop armed groups appearing to enforce their way? These thugs in Somalia are behaving in this way because they profit from it. In an ancap society what will stop people who wish to do so from engaging in whatever profitable activity they fell like?

[Skooma Addict]

If you are asking me what makes me think a socialist Government will simply remain frozen in time then I answer by telling you not to be stupid, of course it will evolve. My argument is that so long as it remains under the control of the electorate (complete with as much direct democracy as reasonably possible) and must act in accordance with an entrenched (socialist) constitution and bill of rights it will not become a dictatorship.


I am asking you what makes you think that a socialist government will be able to remain the egalitarian state that you intended it to be. Governments do not remain the way their founders wanted them to be. Look at America for example. I do not think a constitution really does all that much.


That is a cop out. Even if somehow a state were to be eliminated according to some pie in the sky model proposed by ancaps, what is there to stop armed groups appearing to enforce their way? These thugs in Somalia are behaving in this way because they profit from it. In an ancap society what will stop people who wish to do so from engaging in whatever profitable activity they fell like?

This depends on how the State is eliminated. I already gave a link to a study explaining the warlord situation is Somalia. I think that if AnCap were achieved through a series of gradual changes and reforms, then there would be little to no warfare. There are other options too that I think would work. Once such a society is formed, then I think it would be extremely difficult for people like the thugs in Somalia to gain power. Thugs would be dealt with by PDAs or community guards of some kind.

[Demogorgon]

I am asking you what makes you think that a socialist government will be able to remain the egalitarian state that you intended it to be. Governments do not remain the way their founders wanted them to be. Look at America for example. I do not think a constitution really does all that much.

Of course America does not look like the framers of the constitution intended. It is not a pre-industrial agrarian society with a large number of slaves for one thing and hence the form of Government they were using then has had to change. Fortunately from the point of view of the American elite, the Constitution was flexible enough to allow for that change to happen.

You can say that having a body of basic law overriding other laws (which is what a Constitution is) has little effect. But in practice it does. A socialist society with a Constitution saying first of all that its officials have to go before the electorate every few years and furthermore can be recalled between elections and that all elections have to be monitored to ensure fairness is going to have trouble turning into a dictatorship. The Soviet Union was able to become a dictatorship quite easily because the elections allowed for pretty blatant cheating and because there was no means to challenge the constitutionality of laws and Government action.

Of course there was also the bigger problem that the Soviet Union just didn't have very good conditions for democratic society and proper Communism, hence things went wrong. As I say, I believe that developed societies today do have decent conditions by and large and moreover the conditions are such that if things do go wrong then the outcome will simply be the survival of capitalism and being left with a social democracy. Again not what the aim is, but not so terrifying a prospect as to make the attempt not worth it.


This depends on how the State is eliminated. I already gave a link to a study explaining the warlord situation is Somalia. I think that if AnCap were achieved through a series of gradual changes and reforms, then there would be little to no warfare. There are other options too that I think would work. Once such a society is formed, then I think it would be extremely difficult for people like the thugs in Somalia to gain power. Thugs would be dealt with by PDAs or community guards of some kind.
Look even if things go exactly as you wish then it will still be the case that all that will be required is someone with enough money to hire enough mercenaries and they will be able to do what they wish.

And there will be a lot of people willing to pursue that strategy.

You have these utopian notions that they won't do it because people will stop them. But that isn't the case, they might be able to outfight anyone that tries, they might simply buy them off, they might ally themselves with other warlords or people might just be too scared to try or else feel it isn't worth the effort. Hard though it may be to believe, there are bad people in the world that will seek to benefit themselves at the expense of others. You need to have mechanisms in place that can reliably prevent them from doing so.

[Skooma Addict]

You can say that having a body of basic law overriding other laws (which is what a Constitution is) has little effect. But in practice it does. A socialist society with a Constitution saying first of all that its officials have to go before the electorate every few years and furthermore can be recalled between elections and that all elections have to be monitored to ensure fairness is going to have trouble turning into a dictatorship. The Soviet Union was able to become a dictatorship quite easily because the elections allowed for pretty blatant cheating and because there was no means to challenge the constitutionality of laws and Government action.


I just don't think that writing down some rules on a piece of paper will really accomplish very much in the long run. I wouldn't really want to depend on a government comittee to ensure that the government is going to have fair elections. But it isn't really the fairness of the elections that I am concerned with. Your government is extremely massive and extremely powerful. I do not think a constitution is enough to stop your Socialist government from abusing its powers. What is to stop some members of the government from taking more than they are supposd to have? How would the citizens know if the heads of the government are keeping extra goods for themselves?



Look even if things go exactly as you wish then it will still be the case that all that will be required is someone with enough money to hire enough mercenaries and they will be able to do what they wish.


What would they do with the mercinaries? Once you tell me specifically than I can give a good answer.



You have these utopian notions that they won't do it because people will stop them. But that isn't the case, they might be able to outfight anyone that tries, they might simply buy them off, they might ally themselves with other warlords or people might just be too scared to try or else feel it isn't worth the effort. Hard though it may be to believe, there are bad people in the world that will seek to benefit themselves at the expense of others. You need to have mechanisms in place that can reliably prevent them from doing so.


Do you think I haven't heard this objection 1 million times before? One of the ways to ensure that one group cannot become too powerful is to remove the monopoly on the use of force. Your also trying to paint me as utpoian becasue you imply that I do not know that there are bad people in the world.

Obviously, it is not impossible for a group to conquer a giver territory. I just think it is extremely difficult. As for people who are extremely poor and cannot afford protection, I think Roderick Long makes a very good argument...


"Worries about poor victims who can’t afford legal services, or victims who die without heirs (again, the Randians are very worried about victims dying without heirs) – in the case of poor victims, you can do what they did in Medieval Iceland. You’re too poor to purchase legal services, but still, if someone has harmed you, you have a claim to compensation from that person. You can sell that claim, part of the claim or all of the claim, to someone else. Actually, it’s kind of like hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. You can sell to someone who is in a position to enforce your claim. Or, if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded."

[Demogorgon]

I just don't think that writing down some rules on a piece of paper will really accomplish very much in the long run. I wouldn't really want to depend on a government comittee to ensure that the government is going to have fair elections. But it isn't really the fairness of the elections that I am concerned with. Your government is extremely massive and extremely powerful. I do not think a constitution is enough to stop your Socialist government from abusing its powers. What is to stop some members of the government from taking more than they are supposd to have? How would the citizens know if the heads of the government are keeping extra goods for themselves?

A socialist Government obviously would have a wide scope of things to be done, though not as wide, I think, as you are presuming. Nonetheless that need not mean that any given part of the Government be too powerful. Power does not have to be concentrated.

As for how people will know if members of the Government are abusing their power, that is what a free press and freedom of information laws are for. Not everything in a socialist society need be completely new. Some innovations have appeared under capitalism that are worth retaining.


What would they do with the mercinaries? Once you tell me specifically than I can give a good answer.

Well use violence against women who don't buy the burquas they produce for one.

Generally though you can expect them to intimidate rivals, kill off people forming trade unions, seize desired resources from others too weak to stand up to them, fight against mercenaries hired by others with the same and therefore competing intentions and so on. Sooner or later they will find it extremely profitable to claim control over territory with different groups taking different areas and reaching an uneasy and sometimes broken truce. bit like organised crime does these days, except they will be able to do so completely openly and without any limit on the power they wield. The only thing they will have to fear is a bigger stronger bully coming along to depose them. And that fear won't make them even softer.


Do you think I haven't heard this objection 1 million times before? One of the ways to ensure that one group cannot become too powerful is to remove the monopoly on the use of force. Your also trying to paint me as utpoian becasue you imply that I do not know that there are bad people in the world.

Obviously, it is not impossible for a group to conquer a giver territory. I just think it is extremely difficult. As for people who are extremely poor and cannot afford protection, I think Roderick Long makes a very good argument...

Of course you have heard this many times, but so far your answer has only satisfied those who agree with you anyway. All that removing the monopoly on the use of force does is leave more than one group running around using violence. Areas wracked with civil war have no group with a monopoly on force either, does that make them free?

States did not form out of thin air, communities formed and eventually some came to dominate others, then conquest began, communities banded together under common leadership and whatever and before long all inhabited land was under Government. Now we have even greater competition for control over scarce resources and you expect this not to happen again?

The absolute best you can hope for is various powerful groups will band together to form a cartel that becomes a de facto state, albeit one with no democratic accountability. I suspect it will be rather more violent than that however.



"Worries about poor victims who can’t afford legal services, or victims who die without heirs (again, the Randians are very worried about victims dying without heirs) – in the case of poor victims, you can do what they did in Medieval Iceland. You’re too poor to purchase legal services, but still, if someone has harmed you, you have a claim to compensation from that person. You can sell that claim, part of the claim or all of the claim, to someone else. Actually, it’s kind of like hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. You can sell to someone who is in a position to enforce your claim. Or, if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded."
The trouble is that Medieval Iceland was dominated by a right bloodthirsty group of bastards that were often more or less a law unto themselves. To be sure, if they were caught out, they would often have to pay compensation for what they had done, but don't imagine for a minute they didn't successfully avoid that. That's why blood feuds were such a problem.

[Skooma Addict]

A socialist Government obviously would have a wide scope of things to be done, though not as wide, I think, as you are presuming. Nonetheless that need not mean that any given part of the Government be too powerful. Power does not have to be concentrated.


How isn't power concentrated?


As for how people will know if members of the Government are abusing their power, that is what a free press and freedom of information laws are for. Not everything in a socialist society need be completely new. Some innovations have appeared under capitalism that are worth retaining.

Even if the freedom of press and freedom of information could let people know what their Government is doing, big deal. The government has a monopoly over the use of force. Besides, I am pretty sure that the government wouldn't have a hard time keeping things secret.


Generally though you can expect them to intimidate rivals, kill off people forming trade unions, seize desired resources from others too weak to stand up to them, fight against mercenaries hired by others with the same and therefore competing intentions and so on. Sooner or later they will find it extremely profitable to claim control over territory with different groups taking different areas and reaching an uneasy and sometimes broken truce. bit like organised crime does these days, except they will be able to do so completely openly and without any limit on the power they wield. The only thing they will have to fear is a bigger stronger bully coming along to depose them. And that fear won't make them even softer.

Why? War is expensive. Is the entire population supposed to be unarmed peasants or something? The thing is that the more successful companies are the ones who will want to avoid war. They are the ones who are profiting the most given the current environment. War will only decrease their profits. Also, it is not like a clothing store is going to have it's own army. In your scenario, they would have to subscribe to a PDA or hire Mercenaries. But no PDA is going to want a client who is constantly waging war, since that would raise premiums for the companies customers, which means that the PDA will lose clients to competitors who offer lower premiums.

That just leaves Mercenaries. But since the store would be attacking people who are clients or many different PDAs, I think the Mercenaries would not be able to stand up to multiple professional forces. This is ignoring the fact that the people in the community will not be too happy to hear about some store hiring mercenaries.

Also, look at the record of government protection. In the past century alone, we have had two World Wars and the development of the Atomic Bomb. I do not think that a monopoly on the use of force makes us safer, and I think it is responsible for some of he worst crimes against humanity in history.


The trouble is that Medieval Iceland was dominated by a right bloodthirsty group of bastards that were often more or less a law unto themselves. To be sure, if they were caught out, they would often have to pay compensation for what they had done, but don't imagine for a minute they didn't successfully avoid that. That's why blood feuds were such a problem.

But that wasn't the point. The point was is that the poor wont have much trouble protecting themselves.

[Demogorgon]

How isn't power concentrated?

Separation of Powers.


Even if the freedom of press and freedom of information could let people know what their Government is doing, big deal. The government has a monopoly over the use of force. Besides, I am pretty sure that the government wouldn't have a hard time keeping things secret.

Look, do you think these issues are not already present and resolved in manners not involving clampdown? Every day members of Governments are caught doing things they shouldn't and are hounded by the press and opposition politicians until they resign or are voted out of office.

You seem to think that if some politician is caught with his hands in the till that all other politicians and aspects of Government will rally round him to help him get away with it. Will they hell. His opponents will seize on it as a chance to win elections and his allies will cast him loose as a liability. It happens all the time already, I'm not speaking theoretically here. How exactly is a society that is considerably more democratic and with considerably more freedom of information not manage this?

Incidentally, I oppose standing armies or armed police or anything like that, so it would be hard for such a Government to clamp down on its opponents.


Why? War is expensive.Sure but the rewards can be extraordinary. Win a war and you can plunder resources, make slaves out of the defeated population (a thriving slave trade will certainly exist under anarcho-capitalism incidentally), move your own people into the captured land and so forth. That's why people go to war. It wouldn't happen if there weren't any profit in it.

The thing is that the more successful companies are the ones who will want to avoid war. They are the ones who are profiting the most given the current environment. War will only decrease their profits.That's a big assumption. Certainly some companies, even most at any given time will not want war (though a bit of violence against people trying to form trade unions or whatever will definitely happen), but it only takes one to cause a war.

And lest we forget, an ancap society will have a thriving arms industry still. A large arms industry always increases the likelihood of war.


Also, it is not like a clothing store is going to have it's own army.Well that wasn't actually my scenario, it was simply something reported as happening in Somalia in the BBC link in the OP.


That just leaves Mercenaries. But since the store would be attacking people who are clients or many different PDAs, I think the Mercenaries would not be able to stand up to multiple professional forces. This is ignoring the fact that the people in the community will not be too happy to hear about some store hiring mercenaries. Most likely if they found they couldn't outshoot them they would just buy them off. And don't forget the employees of these so called "PDAs" may rapidly find that the salary paid to an active mercenary is a lot higher than in their existing job.


Also, look at the record of government protection. In the past century alone, we have had two World Wars and the development of the Atomic Bomb. I do not think that a monopoly on the use of force makes us safer, and I think it is responsible for some of he worst crimes against humanity in history.


[quote]
But that wasn't the point. The point was is that the poor wont have much trouble protecting themselves.
Well yes, that is because international relations look a lot like a large scale ancap society. Think of the different countries as being equivalent to different corporations or similar groups. The point is countries need not operate according to any rule other than might makes right. This has been someone curtailed through the United Nations and since it formed war has decreased a bit, but it really doesn't provide much more than a formalised means of resolving disagreements that helps prevent countries from going to war when they don't really want to, but does not prevent war when they are determined to do it. The United States for instance invaded Iraq in violation of all international law and agreements it is party too and got away with it because nobody can do anything about it. Similarly the one thing that would make it think twice (countries imposing trade embargoes in retaliation) can't happen because very few places can afford not to trade with the United States. This is precisely why I think socialism will have to involve some form of world federalism. It is the only way to prevent interstate conflict.

In an ancap society the same thing will happen, just that it will be a conflict between large corporations rather than countries. They will certainly make deals amongst themselves to keep conflict down, but they will ignore it when it suits them. The biggest and most powerful ones will therefore be just like the United States on the international stage. Able to do what they like because nobody can do anything about it.

[Skooma Addict]

Separation of Powers.

So in other words, power is centralized on the government.


Look, do you think these issues are not already present and resolved in manners not involving clampdown? Every day members of Governments are caught doing things they shouldn't and are hounded by the press and opposition politicians until they resign or are voted out of office.

You seem to think that if some politician is caught with his hands in the till that all other politicians and aspects of Government will rally round him to help him get away with it. Will they hell. His opponents will seize on it as a chance to win elections and his allies will cast him loose as a liability. It happens all the time already, I'm not speaking theoretically here. How exactly is a society that is considerably more democratic and with considerably more freedom of information not manage this?

Politicians get away with stuff no other citizen could get away with all the time. Look at all the people who opposed Guantanamo Bay, yet the place stayed up for years. Is anyone even being punished? Sometimes they will be held accountable, but rarely for things that actually matter. Freedom of press and information is not nearly enough in my opinion.


Incidentally, I oppose standing armies or armed police or anything like that, so it would be hard for such a Government to clamp down on its opponents.


Would your Socialist government have police and an army? If not, then I don't think many people would actually listen to a word you say. If you do, well then that is too bad because your police and army force can externalize costs. If your monopoly on force is funded with tax dollars, then who stands to lose something if a police officer breaks the law?



Sure but the rewards can be extraordinary. Win a war and you can plunder resources, make slaves out of the defeated population (a thriving slave trade will certainly exist under anarcho-capitalism incidentally), move your own people into the captured land and so forth. That's why people go to war. It wouldn't happen if there weren't any profit in it.

Except private companies cannot externalize costs like governments can. War is profitable now because the taxpayers pay the bill. Lets see what happens to the premiums of the customers who subscribe to a PDA which declares war. They would go up tenfold. Also, even though society is not comprised of angels, it isn't comprised of devils either. People do oppose slavery, and they won't support PDAs or Mercenaries who attempt to acquire slaves. War is extremely expensive, and it requires a huge amount of effort, money and time. It will be far less common if you cannot externalize costs.


That's a big assumption. Certainly some companies, even most at any given time will not want war (though a bit of violence against people trying to form trade unions or whatever will definitely happen), but it only takes one to cause a war.

And lest we forget, an ancap society will have a thriving arms industry still. A large arms industry always increases the likelihood of war.

There wouldn't be violence against trade unions. Trade unions would be less powerful than they are now. There would be an arms industry, but poor people could defend themselves. It would be easier to acquire a weapon.


Most likely if they found they couldn't outshoot them they would just buy them off. And don't forget the employees of these so called "PDAs" may rapidly find that the salary paid to an active mercenary is a lot higher than in their existing job.


What do you mean they would buy them off? Is this like a multi-billion dollar company we are talking about? Buyouts occur all the time, and there is nothing wrong with them. Also, it is about 1000 times more dangerous to work as a Mercenary. Aggressive Mercenaries would also have to go up against an armed population and community guards along with PDAs.

Its not that there would never be fighting, it is just that the incentives to fight are greatly reduced. It is far better than having an election every 4 years to ensure safety.


Well yes, that is because international relations look a lot like a large scale ancap society. Think of the different countries as being equivalent to different corporations or similar groups. The point is countries need not operate according to any rule other than might makes right. This has been someone curtailed through the United Nations and since it formed war has decreased a bit, but it really doesn't provide much more than a formalised means of resolving disagreements that helps prevent countries from going to war when they don't really want to, but does not prevent war when they are determined to do it. The United States for instance invaded Iraq in violation of all international law and agreements it is party too and got away with it because nobody can do anything about it. Similarly the one thing that would make it think twice (countries imposing trade embargoes in retaliation) can't happen because very few places can afford not to trade with the United States. This is precisely why I think socialism will have to involve some form of world federalism. It is the only way to prevent interstate conflict.

Notice how the people from these countries get along just fine. They trade with each other, and they generally respect each others customs. It is mainly the governments that cannot get along.


In an ancap society the same thing will happen, just that it will be a conflict between large corporations rather than countries. They will certainly make deals amongst themselves to keep conflict down, but they will ignore it when it suits them. The biggest and most powerful ones will therefore be just like the United States on the international stage. Able to do what they like because nobody can do anything about it.

But corporations do not have a monopoly of force over a given territorial area, and they cannot externalize costs. I don't think your analogy holds water. The main difference between us is that you support a monopoly, and I think monopolies are a bad idea.

[Demogorgon]

So in other words, power is centralized on the government.
Only if you see Government as some abstract entity existing apart from everything else in society. Governments are part of society and exercise their power within that context. A socialist Government would be one of the people, with a multitude of instruments in place to make sure it could not separate itself too much from the people. When the people themselves are the Government then saying power is centralised in it, is simply to say it is spread between all people. You don't get much more decentralised than that.

To be sure it would exist at a number of levels. Large scale endeavors require territorially large management and so forth. But again these would be fully democratic, more so than any current Government and might I also add, that while there are problems with any system, my proposed one included, an institution of power answerable to the people is always preferable to one that isn't.


Politicians get away with stuff no other citizen could get away with all the time. Look at all the people who opposed Guantanamo Bay, yet the place stayed up for years. Is anyone even being punished? Sometimes they will be held accountable, but rarely for things that actually matter. Freedom of press and information is not nearly enough in my opinion.

Well yes, but then the American Government is still a capitalist Government and one with a particularly archaic structure might I add. There are few if any Governments in the Western World less accountable to their people than the American one (and even the best are still not that great) and that's before we even get into problems with the American media.


Would your Socialist government have police and an army? If not, then I don't think many people would actually listen to a word you say. If you do, well then that is too bad because your police and army force can externalize costs. If your monopoly on force is funded with tax dollars, then who stands to lose something if a police officer breaks the law?

Well obviously there would be means of law enforcement. But again accountable law enforcement. It may surprise you to learn, but we do not live in an absolute monarchy (well I don't anyway), even in flawed capitalist polyarchies, the police will act within some restraints, and they are not terribly accountable.


Except private companies cannot externalize costs like governments can. War is profitable now because the taxpayers pay the bill. Lets see what happens to the premiums of the customers who subscribe to a PDA which declares war. They would go up tenfold. Also, even though society is not comprised of angels, it isn't comprised of devils either. People do oppose slavery, and they won't support PDAs or Mercenaries who attempt to acquire slaves. War is extremely expensive, and it requires a huge amount of effort, money and time. It will be far less common if you cannot externalize costs.
[quote]
There is a whole bunch of questionable statements here. First of all with slavery. Most people probably will dislike it, but so what? Most people won't have slaves. Some will however. Or are you going to restrict property rights? It will be extremely profitable to capture people and sell them into slavery. Not to mention you will immediately see contracts like the ones that existed in the Roman Empire stipulating that if a debtor failed to meet his debts, he would become the property of the creditor.

Next you talk about "externalising costs" being the reason for war. Well no. War is profitable for whoever engages in it so long as they win and win well. Of course a lot of it is tax funded now, but that does not change the fact that the profit is still there. In times gone by, kings ruled their lands in a manner that looked a lot like some corporations now actually and hence they had to meet the cost of war themselves. But still did it. Constantly. Of course you will say, they forced their people to pay taxes. Well yes. But what will stop corporations from doing the same? They can cut wages to fund the war effort, raise prices, or simply extort money from people living in areas under their control ("if you don't accept your new tripled rent, we will consider you trespassers on our property"). You can say "oh well they can go elsewhere", but it is perfectly possible they can't. Either because the corporation has a complete control over the area or simply because there is threat of violence if they don't.

Or here is another option, one that isn't even so forceful. The corporation might sell war bonds. "We are going to go and murder so and so and steal all his stuff. The profit will be enormous. Invest in this today and you will get a huge payout once we are done".
[quote]
There wouldn't be violence against trade unions. Trade unions would be less powerful than they are now.Well yes, in a large part because they would be subjected to God knows what if they dared to raise their heads. But yes, I am aware ancaps hate the thought of anything that will give workers a stronger voice against their employers.


What do you mean they would buy them off? Is this like a multi-billion dollar company we are talking about? Buyouts occur all the time, and there is nothing wrong with them. Also, it is about 1000 times more dangerous to work as a Mercenary. Aggressive Mercenaries would also have to go up against an armed population and community guards along with PDAs.Sure being a mercenary is dangerous. So is being a soldier actually. But you get plenty of volunteers for both. And who is to say how much fighting they would have to do with these "PDAs" and whatnot? ("Ignore our invasion and we will give you this incredibly lucrative contract").


Notice how the people from these countries get along just fine. They trade with each other, and they generally respect each others customs. It is mainly the governments that cannot get along.
Well it is perfectly possible to drum people up into a war frenzy or foster hatred of "the other" or whatever. But again ordinary people's wishes don't matter. The majority doesn't have to want to go to war. Just those powerful and rich enough to call the shots.


But corporations do not have a monopoly of force over a given territorial area, and they cannot externalize costs. I don't think your analogy holds water. The main difference between us is that you support a monopoly, and I think monopolies are a bad idea.
You are obsessed with this notion of monopoly of force when it is really not relevant here. First of all Governments don't really have a monopoly on force anyway a lot of the time. Even some Western Governments like the Italian one share it with powerful organised crime. Go into mafia heartlands in Italy, even today and the mob is a lot more important than the police.

Secondly nobody has a monopoly of force on the world stage. Depending on how you count there are around 195 countries in the world, most of which maintain their own armies. Almost two hundred different entities able to use force is no monopoly whatever way you look at it. That's perhaps more than the number of corporations able to exert force will exist in an ancap society once you take into account the tendency towards oligopoly.

There is nothing to stop corporations from buying out an entire area and setting themselves up as a Government there, nor, if that should fail, is there anything that will stop a bunch of them coming together and setting up a Government to assist them. You seem to think there will be a multitude of small armed units all selling their services and none getting too big, which is nonsense. They will buy each other out, pick off smaller competitors and eventually merge into the de facto states formed by other corporations.

[Skooma Addict]

I think I have pretty much said everything I wanted to say, so I will just respond to a few points.


Well yes, but then the American Government is still a capitalist Government and one with a particularly archaic structure might I add. There are few if any Governments in the Western World less accountable to their people than the American one (and even the best are still not that great) and that's before we even get into problems with the American media.

Yes but there are many other examples I could use besides America.


Well yes, in a large part because they would be subjected to God knows what if they dared to raise their heads. But yes, I am aware ancaps hate the thought of anything that will give workers a stronger voice against their employers.

Most AnCaps only hate violations of the NAP. I am sure you already know that people do not support Anarcho-Capitalism due to a hatred of the working class.

[Demogorgon]

Most AnCaps only hate violations of the NAP. I am sure you already know that people do not support Anarcho-Capitalism due to a hatred of the working class.
Perhaps you don't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But let's face it, the co-called NAP is just a bit of intellectual gymnastics used to back certain economic policies its holders maintain.

[Skooma Addict]

Perhaps you don't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But let's face it, the co-called NAP is just a bit of intellectual gymnastics used to back certain economic policies its holders maintain.

I do not believe in the NAP. I do not believe in objective ethics, and I do not believe the NAP is a good concept to adhere to even in the context of relativism. Some crazy and insane things are justified when you take the NAP to its logical conclusion. I don't just disagree with the NAP, I am very much opposed to it.

[Demogorgon]

I do not believe in the NAP. I do not believe in objective ethics, and I do not believe the NAP is a good concept to adhere to even in the context of relativism. Some crazy and insane things are justified when you take the NAP to its logical conclusion. I don't just disagree with the NAP, I am very much opposed to it.
Fine. Of course that leaves your own position a bit vague, but I'm sure I will understand it better with further discussion. :)

[Green Dragon]

What I said was that often when socialists set out to change things they frequently ended up with social democracy instead. Indeed that's what always happened in developed countries, dictatorships didn't occur. So what you should be asking me is not what makes me think a dictatorship will not happen but what makes me think we won't end up simply making changes to the present system. Which would be a reasonable question and one I would answer by demonstrating how various policies would be different from previous reformist social democrats, but at the end of the day while simply repeating their past actions would be, from our perspective a failure, it would not be a dictatorship.

Ok. But is their a correlation between socialism evolving into social democracy, and a lack of dictatorship? Why did the socialists abandon socialism and opt for social democracy instead?

[Green Dragon]

Only if you see Government as some abstract entity existing apart from everything else in society. Governments are part of society and exercise their power within that context. A socialist Government would be one of the people, with a multitude of instruments in place to make sure it could not separate itself too much from the people. When the people themselves are the Government then saying power is centralised in it, is simply to say it is spread between all people. You don't get much more decentralised than that.

In other words, government will be everywhere, with a hand in all things. It does not seem too decentralised at all. Since it is supposed to be democratic, the power is not spread amongst all the people, but only amongst the "majority" of the people.