Market anarchy is nothing more than voluntary association, nothing more than the non-coercion principle, which means everyone has a right to themselves, their property, and to voluntarily associate with others as they and others see fit.
If you justify a state then you must be able to justify involuntary contract, coercion, and violence. Nothing could be more common sense than market anarchy and property rights. The state needs to wither away and die.
I am hoping that we are on the verge of real liberty, not another Constitutional Republic that will degenerate back into oligarchy and tyranny. I have tons of respect for the Founders and American tradition, but it is time for humanity to take the final leap from chaos.
that a free market has to first exist in order for anarcho-capitalism to operate. What is going to provide the free market in the first place, where private security is able to compete in a free market with each other?
I used to be anarcho-capitalist until I realized that fatal flaw or oversight.
Currently, a private protection agency would be constantly usurped and interrupted by the State's police agents and courts.
So, your point is correct.
There will need to be an intellectual evolution of a critical mass of individuals before the State can start to be withered away. Only at that point, I think, will private protection agencies be able to operate free from the coercive invasion of the State.
The free market is not a tangible, material object, but rather it encompasses all buying and selling activity that arises from free individuals engaging in the division of labor. For a free-market to exist there must be a lack of intervention on the part of a state or government. Your argument doesn't really make sense because as long as people can freely form contracts based on private property, without intervention(in the form of state laws etc...),private defense can freely form. Competition between private security should not only be permissible, but should be encouraged. As with the production of all goods(and security is one of them) consumers are always benefited by greater competition because it always leads to lower costs and delivery of better service.
"as long as people can freely form contracts based on private property, without intervention(in the form of state laws etc...),private defense can freely form."
Sure, "AS LONG AS," meaning that freedom has to first exist. Who is going to provide that freedom? There would have to be an overarching defense agency to provide the free market in the first place. In other words, there has to be a monopoly which prevents the competing defense firms from coercively interfering with each other. Private defense firms coercively interfering with each other is the lack of a free market.
Remember that private security organisations exist because consumers are willing to pay for their services. There is NO possible gain to consumers if these organisations begin to act coercively towards one another or towards consumers that have done no wrong. In other words, no one would be willing to pay for these organisations to fight amongst themselves. It is much more likely that those unscrupulous and illegal organisations that begin to act in such a manner would no longer have willing customers and would likely go out of business - unable to pay their employees, the firm can no longer render any of its services(good or bad). Whereas, the organisations that more closely provide services that consumers ACTUALLY want(i.e private property protection, justice etc...) will more likely run a profit and stay in business.
He says "If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputesthrough arbitration most of the time."
That's a big "if." Sure, IF you have a choice between two protection agencies." If you have that choice, then you're in a free market. But someone would have to provide the freedom for you to make that choice in the first place. If competing defense providers are extorting protection money from you, you don't have the choice. So there has to be one monopoly agency that prevents competition in force.
Premise a): "IF you have a choice between two protection agencies. If you have that choice, then you're in a free market." (true)
Premise b): "But someone would have to provide the freedom for you to make that choice in the first place." (true)
Premise c):"If competing defense providers are extorting protection money from you, you don't have the choice." (true)
Conclusion: "So there has to be one monopoly agency that prevents competition in force in order that there can be a peaceful and predictable environment for business to be carried on and prosperity to be generated..."
(false? I don't see how that follows from the premises. Additionally, if there is a group that is initiating violence to prevent competition, do you really have a peaceful environment?)
Ultimately the only thing that guarantees an individual's property rights is the individual himself(hence the 2nd amendment?) To be honest, the state weakens property rights far more than it protects them.
I have always felt that there is a role for government.
My definition of a good government may be different than yours.
A good government is simply an entity formed by the community where all who agree with this contract will have others come to their defense of personal property. Anyone that wishes to benefit from such services must also agree to the contract.
In this manner, one can place property protection lower on their priority list and concentrate on getting wealthy and accumulate more property, ergo helping the community.
The "government" which you describe you could easily come about through market anarchism and would not be unwelcome(double negative!). Any agreement come to by free individuals voluntarily can exist in market
anarchism.
For instance, me and my buddies could pool together and create an organisation called the City of Ottawa. We could offer the same services that local governments usually provide but there is a fundamental difference between the organisation me and my friends made and the real-world City of Ottawa. Real-world governments own the monopoly on violence and law and as such can coerce you into paying for the services whether you wish to or not. Market anarchism can allow for ALL kinds of social arrangements, with the only condition that all members voluntarily agreed to the arrangement.
i'm familiar with it :) Hoppe always has very interesting things to say. Austrian School economists tend to favor anarcho-capitalism and the school is a huge intellectual influence on Ron Paul.
for those opposed to market anarchy....
Market anarchy is nothing more than voluntary association, nothing more than the non-coercion principle, which means everyone has a right to themselves, their property, and to voluntarily associate with others as they and others see fit.
If you justify a state then you must be able to justify involuntary contract, coercion, and violence. Nothing could be more common sense than market anarchy and property rights. The state needs to wither away and die.
I am hoping that we are on the verge of real liberty, not another Constitutional Republic that will degenerate back into oligarchy and tyranny. I have tons of respect for the Founders and American tradition, but it is time for humanity to take the final leap from chaos.
anarcho-capitalist do not see
that a free market has to first exist in order for anarcho-capitalism to operate. What is going to provide the free market in the first place, where private security is able to compete in a free market with each other?
I used to be anarcho-capitalist until I realized that fatal flaw or oversight.
The State is the problem
Currently, a private protection agency would be constantly usurped and interrupted by the State's police agents and courts.
So, your point is correct.
There will need to be an intellectual evolution of a critical mass of individuals before the State can start to be withered away. Only at that point, I think, will private protection agencies be able to operate free from the coercive invasion of the State.
If people intellectually
evolved to that point, there wouldn't be a need for the private defense agencies.
Why is that?
Assertion without evidence.
well...
The free market is not a tangible, material object, but rather it encompasses all buying and selling activity that arises from free individuals engaging in the division of labor. For a free-market to exist there must be a lack of intervention on the part of a state or government. Your argument doesn't really make sense because as long as people can freely form contracts based on private property, without intervention(in the form of state laws etc...),private defense can freely form. Competition between private security should not only be permissible, but should be encouraged. As with the production of all goods(and security is one of them) consumers are always benefited by greater competition because it always leads to lower costs and delivery of better service.
You say..
"as long as people can freely form contracts based on private property, without intervention(in the form of state laws etc...),private defense can freely form."
Sure, "AS LONG AS," meaning that freedom has to first exist. Who is going to provide that freedom? There would have to be an overarching defense agency to provide the free market in the first place. In other words, there has to be a monopoly which prevents the competing defense firms from coercively interfering with each other. Private defense firms coercively interfering with each other is the lack of a free market.
Remember that private
Remember that private security organisations exist because consumers are willing to pay for their services. There is NO possible gain to consumers if these organisations begin to act coercively towards one another or towards consumers that have done no wrong. In other words, no one would be willing to pay for these organisations to fight amongst themselves. It is much more likely that those unscrupulous and illegal organisations that begin to act in such a manner would no longer have willing customers and would likely go out of business - unable to pay their employees, the firm can no longer render any of its services(good or bad). Whereas, the organisations that more closely provide services that consumers ACTUALLY want(i.e private property protection, justice etc...) will more likely run a profit and stay in business.
Private defense agencies + self interest
Have you seen libertarian theorist Roderick Long's paper that touches on this?
See his discussion on common objections #4, Ayn Rand: Private Protection Agencies Will Battle.
I just checked it out.
It's still missing the bigger picture.
He says "If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputesthrough arbitration most of the time."
That's a big "if." Sure, IF you have a choice between two protection agencies." If you have that choice, then you're in a free market. But someone would have to provide the freedom for you to make that choice in the first place. If competing defense providers are extorting protection money from you, you don't have the choice. So there has to be one monopoly agency that prevents competition in force.
Part missing in your conclusion
"So there has to be one monopoly agency that prevents competition in force"...for what goal or purpose are you referring to??
Clarify that and I'll respond.
In order
that there can be a peaceful and predictable environment for business to be carried on and prosperity to be generated.
Non-sequitur?
Premise a): "IF you have a choice between two protection agencies. If you have that choice, then you're in a free market." (true)
Premise b): "But someone would have to provide the freedom for you to make that choice in the first place." (true)
Premise c):"If competing defense providers are extorting protection money from you, you don't have the choice." (true)
Conclusion: "So there has to be one monopoly agency that prevents competition in force in order that there can be a peaceful and predictable environment for business to be carried on and prosperity to be generated..."
(false? I don't see how that follows from the premises. Additionally, if there is a group that is initiating violence to prevent competition, do you really have a peaceful environment?)
And who protects these property rights?
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Ultimately the only thing
Ultimately the only thing that guarantees an individual's property rights is the individual himself(hence the 2nd amendment?) To be honest, the state weakens property rights far more than it protects them.
Maybe I don't understand ...
I have always felt that there is a role for government.
My definition of a good government may be different than yours.
A good government is simply an entity formed by the community where all who agree with this contract will have others come to their defense of personal property. Anyone that wishes to benefit from such services must also agree to the contract.
In this manner, one can place property protection lower on their priority list and concentrate on getting wealthy and accumulate more property, ergo helping the community.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
But Rhino, in the current system
have you signed any contract?
No, you were automatically forced into the contract since you were born.
The "government" which you
The "government" which you describe you could easily come about through market anarchism and would not be unwelcome(double negative!). Any agreement come to by free individuals voluntarily can exist in market
anarchism.
For instance, me and my buddies could pool together and create an organisation called the City of Ottawa. We could offer the same services that local governments usually provide but there is a fundamental difference between the organisation me and my friends made and the real-world City of Ottawa. Real-world governments own the monopoly on violence and law and as such can coerce you into paying for the services whether you wish to or not. Market anarchism can allow for ALL kinds of social arrangements, with the only condition that all members voluntarily agreed to the arrangement.
oooo me
i'm familiar with it :) Hoppe always has very interesting things to say. Austrian School economists tend to favor anarcho-capitalism and the school is a huge intellectual influence on Ron Paul.
Anybody on here familiar with anarcho-capitalism?
bump