The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

[n_huffhines]

So the water company cuts off you're water you're security company attacks them? Wouldn't they in essence be in control of the water company? Or would the water company have 500 competitors also? That would be a lot of underground pipelines.

Many security companies would threaten to attack if the water company was behaving badly.

The water company certainly has a protection agency.

The protection agency doesn't want to protect them unless they are obligated to, because they want to minimize cost. They will have contingincies in their contracts for cases where the water company behaves badly. Their protection agency will say, "you're on your own, pal." and then the water company will settle with the people because they can't defend themselves.

In the case that the water company is shutting off water for non-payment (a weird scenario for an entire community to stop paying, but we'll entertain it), then the protection agencies for the people will be the ones who stand down. They don't want to incur costs to protect people who are behaving.

If they both feel like they are behaving fairly they will go to a private arbitrator. The agreed upon arbitrator will determine the settlement. Whichever side loses, the protection agency no longer is obligated to protect, so they will be happy to observe the ruling and avoid the cost of fighting it.

Still with me?

 

[n_huffhines]

Where I'm getting hung up is you seeming assumption that markets don't foster corruption or naturally resist it.

Corruption is ever-present. I am looking for the system that least enables corrupt behavior.

 

[volinbham]

Let's say my community lives upstream from your community. What's to stop us from using more than our share of the water and not treating our waste properly?

 

[Thrasher865]

What is the difference between these "protection agencies" and government? How do you reasonably expect to avoid corruption in all of these agencies?

Why don't you come out of your fantasy world and admit what you really want is limited government?

 

[Thrasher865]

Anarchy on the roads. "But who will be the one to decide...." Somehow it works.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU[/youtube]

What does this have to do with anarchy? Reduced traffic control is a separate issue altogether. Limited traffic control is great. People should be able to make responsible decisions on local streets without the legal requirement to stop at an intersection that sees only a few hundred vehicles per day.

I would like to see a busy downtown functioning if you shut off all the signals, though.

 

[volinbham]

Corruption is ever-present. I am looking for the system that least enables corrupt behavior.

You need rule of law. Rule of law requires enforcement.

What you are advocating would be each group having their own laws and enforcement.

Once you codify norms you have law. If all enforcement agencies have to follow the same law and enforce it the same way what is the differentiator? Why would the market support endless variety?

Alternatively, without agreed upon laws and enforcement rules you enable corruption just as much or more so than the system you are rebelling against.

Markets are systems of exchange but not all situations we face are equally well served by markets.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Anarchy on the roads. "But who will be the one to decide...." Somehow it works.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU[/youtube]

You are dealing with people have been conditioned with how to obey the rules of the road.

Go drive in Vietnam or other third world countries. Not even close to the same (but closer to what you are advocating).

 

[n_huffhines]

Let's say my community lives upstream from your community. What's to stop us from using more than our share of the water and not treating our waste properly?

Protection agencies that represent my community can come after you. We go to a private arbitrator. Your details are pretty vague, so I have to keep my explanation vague, but basically the arbitrator will find your community liable for damages, and people will owe like in a civil suit today. The waste management company might owe some/all. Individuals in your community might end up owing. Depends on all the details of the case.

The important thing is that if you are found to owe, then you pay, because your protection agency will not defend you. They are not obligated to, so they will minimize cost and abandon you if you do not pay.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

"Anarchy is all around us. Without it, our world would fall apart. All progress is due to it. All order extends from it. All blessed things that rise above the state of nature are owned to it. The human race thrives only because of the lack of control, not because of it. I’m saying that we need ever more absence of control to make the world a more beautiful place. It is a paradox that we must forever explain." Jeffrey Tucker

 

[hog88]

I have a question for you Huff;

I have a neighbor that I can't stand, this is true. Let me throw a couple scenarios at you.

1. We have different security companies, I want this POS gone so I direct my company to get rid of him. His defends him, so we just have an all out war? If mine is successful does he just lose all property rights?

2. We have the same company. Do they enforce the will of the highest bidder?

 

[n_huffhines]

I have a question for you Huff;

I have a neighbor that I can't stand, this is true. Let me throw a couple scenarios at you.

1. We have different security companies, I want this POS gone so I direct my company to get rid of him. His defends him, so we just have an all out war? If mine is successful does he just lose all property rights?

Your protection agency will tell you to kick rocks at the get-go. They're not in the business of roughing up people you dislike.

2. We have the same company. Do they enforce the will of the highest bidder?

No. They enforce what's fair. If they get a reputation for ruling unfairly to the highest bidder, they lose a huge portion of their customer base, if not all of it. The success of their entire business is contingent on their being viewed as fair.

 

[hog88]

Many security companies would threaten to attack if the water company was behaving badly.

The water company certainly has a protection agency.

The protection agency doesn't want to protect them unless they are obligated to, because they want to minimize cost. They will have contingincies in their contracts for cases where the water company behaves badly. Their protection agency will say, "you're on your own, pal." and then the water company will settle with the people because they can't defend themselves.

In the case that the water company is shutting off water for non-payment (a weird scenario for an entire community to stop paying, but we'll entertain it), then the protection agencies for the people will be the ones who stand down. They don't want to incur costs to protect people who are behaving.

If they both feel like they are behaving fairly they will go to a private arbitrator. The agreed upon arbitrator will determine the settlement. Whichever side loses, the protection agency no longer is obligated to protect, so they will be happy to observe the ruling and avoid the cost of fighting it.

Still with me?

No because this is anarchy, there is no community, there is only you and who you pay. The owner of the water company could simply not like you and shuts you off. Since chances are the water company has deeper pockets than you, they win and you have no recourse.

 

[volinbham]

Protection agencies that represent my community can come after you. We go to a private arbitrator. Your details are pretty vague, so I have to keep my explanation vague, but basically the arbitrator will find your community liable for damages, and people will owe like in a civil suit today. The waste management company might owe some/all. Individuals in your community might end up owing. Depends on all the details of the case.

The important thing is that if you are found to owe, then you pay, because your protection agency will not defend you. They are not obligated to, so they will minimize cost and abandon you if you do not pay.

Why would we agree to go to this arbiter? Who authorizes these arbiters and more importantly who do they work for (they must have some customers).

Why wouldn't the protection agency support me since they work for my community not yours. We are the ones who pay them so according to your explanation of the market they would strive to keep us happy; not their non-customers.

More importantly, who determines what's just? We could argue that the water originates in our territory therefore it is ours to use as we see fit. Why would we be bound by what's in your interests?

 

[hog88]

Protection agencies that represent my community can come after you. We go to a private arbitrator. Your details are pretty vague, so I have to keep my explanation vague, but basically the arbitrator will find your community liable for damages, and people will owe like in a civil suit today. The waste management company might owe some/all. Individuals in your community might end up owing. Depends on all the details of the case.

The important thing is that if you are found to owe, then you pay, because your protection agency will not defend you. They are not obligated to, so they will minimize cost and abandon you if you do not pay.

Again with the community? I thought anarchy was complete free market and it was up to the individual to hire their own protection and all other vital service providers.

Now you could say that the community could band together and hire a common provider, but wouldn't that just be a government?

 

[volinbham]

Your protection agency will tell you to kick rocks at the get-go. They're not in the business of roughing up people you dislike.



No. They enforce what's fair. If they get a reputation for ruling unfairly to the highest bidder, they lose a huge portion of their customer base, if not all of it. The success of their entire business is contingent on their being viewed as fair.

I'm amused at how you've written the rules that these agencies are in the business of this but not that.

You don't think there's a market for agencies that will enforce what you want? Especially since there are no official laws?

Is there universal fairness?

 

[hog88]

Your protection agency will tell you to kick rocks at the get-go. They're not in the business of roughing up people you dislike.

I thought they were for profit organizations? I would expect them to do what I pay them to do and settle disputes on my behalf.

No. They enforce what's fair. If they get a reputation for ruling unfairly to the highest bidder, they lose a huge portion of their customer base, if not all of it. The success of their entire business is contingent on their being viewed as fair.

lol:lol: The highest bidder gets the best services. It's a win for the company to have high paying exclusive clientele.

.

 

[n_huffhines]

No because this is anarchy, there is no community, there is only you and who you pay. The owner of the water company could simply not like you and shuts you off. Since chances are the water company has deeper pockets than you, they win and you have no recourse.

I just wrote 3 paragraphs detailing the recourse process. It seems we are at an impasse.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

So Huff, would contracts mean anything in anarchy? Would those who break their contracts fare very well in an AnCap community?

 

[volinbham]

Embedded in the notion of market efficiency is choice. This also implies that different customers seek different things - hence they gravitate towards the suppliers whose offers best meet their needs.

Accordingly, the variety of protection agencies would be as great as the variety of what people desire in protection. They would not all be limited to some universally agreed upon set of norms - if they were then there would be no need for the variety and choice.

As a result, dispute settlement would come down to power of one agency to force its will upon the other.

If you argue the power of choice here then you must recognize the variety in what is considered "fair" and what someone is buying protection from.

Likewise, these "arbiters" would have to come in many flavors and would have built in conflicts of interest since they are serving particular paying customers rather than the collective.

 

[hog88]

I just wrote 3 paragraphs detailing the recourse process. It seems we are at an impasse.

In all three paragraphs you only detailed that if companies were behaving badly people would stop doing business with them.

You seem to rely on the good will of others and their sense of fair play as your only recourse.

 

[Thrasher865]

In all three paragraphs you only detailed that if companies were behaving badly people would stop doing business with them.

You seem to rely on the good will of others and their sense of fair play as your only recourse.

Yeah, so if a company gains a reputation as being unfairly biased towards their clients, wouldn't they be the ones that everyone wants to hire? Then you have something like our legal system. Representation biased towards their client (Not saying it's wrong. That's how our legal system is structured.) on both sides.

So you introduce "unbiased" mediators or arbitrators. You don't think there's room for corruption in this system? You don't think Mr. Moneybags is going to cut a check to the mediators under the table?

 

[n_huffhines]

Why would we agree to go to this arbiter? Who authorizes these arbiters and more importantly who do they work for (they must have some customers).

Because you choose them, based on your criteria for what you seek in an arbitrator. The market either values their opinions or they do not. No authority needs to be granted.

Why wouldn't the protection agency support me since they work for my community not yours. We are the ones who pay them so according to your explanation of the market they would strive to keep us happy; not their non-customers.

People within a community would be represented by various protection agencies. Next door neighbors would have different agencies, so this question doesn't make sense. It'

More importantly, who determines what's just? We could argue that the water originates in our territory therefore it is ours to use as we see fit. Why would we be bound by what's in your interests?

That's a great argument. The origin of the water would factor into the decision. There would have to be some sort of settlement so that your community is adequately compensated for the water we get.

To answer the question of "who determines what's just?", we have to destroy the notion that our system for handling such cases is not a just system. The idea that someone can determine what justness is, is absurd in the first place. Government is just guessing. And they're corrupt. I hold anarchy to the same standard...it would be an imperfect system beholden to societal standards, IE, we're not going to behead debtors or let rapists off with a slap on the wrist.

 

[volinbham]

So Huff, would contracts mean anything in anarchy? Would those who break their contracts fare very well in an AnCap community?

Can I answer this? (you know I'm gonna)

In a perfectly competitive market, breaking contracts should be bad for your business.

In other markets (limited number of suppliers, high entry barriers, etc) the impact could be negligible and actually work to increase your power.

I'll also note that it can happen the other way were customers are the "bad actors" extracting excessive rents from suppliers.

In an environment with no central rule of law/enforcement the power/dependency abuses are greatly magnified.

 

[Thrasher865]

Yeah, so if a company gains a reputation as being unfairly biased towards their clients, wouldn't they be the ones that everyone wants to hire? Then you have something like our legal system. Representation biased towards their client (Not saying it's wrong. That's how our legal system is structured.) on both sides.

So you introduce "unbiased" mediators or arbitrators. You don't think there's room for corruption in this system? You don't think Mr. Moneybags is going to cut a check to the mediators under the table?

Continuing on, so then you have to institute some sort of licensing board for arbitrators to keep them honest or lose their license and disallow practice by any unlicensed professionals.

I mean at what point do you just cut your losses and admit you're going to wind up right back where you started?

 

[n_huffhines]

In all three paragraphs you only detailed that if companies were behaving badly people would stop doing business with them.

You seem to rely on the good will of others and their sense of fair play as your only recourse.

Based on this response, you are either being disingenuous, or you don't follow my arguments at all. Like I said, we are at an impasse.