But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? (by Robert P. Murphy)

Подписаться 14 тыс.

Просмотров 22 тыс.

50% 1

Professor Murphy responds to the common objection to anarchy: the fear that society will degenerate into chaos, or that a rogue security firm will form a monopoly become a new State.
Article Text: mises.org/library/wouldnt-war...
Published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute with a Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0.
Read by Graham Wright.

Опубликовано:

9 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 398

@epicproportionsmediaproduc6697 4 года назад

“But wouldn’t warlords take over?” Haven’t they already?

@robertblume2951 3 года назад

That's actually the point of the argument. States dissolve all the time. But all that happens is new states emerge never ancapistan.

@Quill_Of_Shadows Год назад

@@robertblume2951 so we need to destroy entire army, police to achieve stateless society. But without these enforcers private property can't exist, so it won't be capitalism

@robertblume2951 Год назад

@@Quill_Of_Shadows soldiers and police are just people. We will just make new ones. And you clearly don't know what capitalism is if you think private armies aren't part of it. You pay em it's capitalism.

@Quill_Of_Shadows Год назад

@@robertblume2951 I said that capitalism cannot exist without army, because none will enforce private ownership of the means of production, so it will be more likely left anarchism. If new armies are made, they will unite in one cartel and take over using the right of the strongest. Population of simple people even if they have guns cannot effectively stand against well organized and pofessional corporate army. We already live under warlords rule called government

@robertblume2951 Год назад

@@Quill_Of_Shadows you aren't understanding my point which is that they will always exist because new ones will form. People will always organize into bigger groups to protect their stuff its human nature. And literally everything is a means of production.

@uhclem 9 лет назад

But wouldn't the strawmen take over?

@danielzigger591 7 лет назад

You hear the sound of straw rustling aggressively.

@kristiank1276 6 лет назад

best comment EVER

@ryanborganson9091 4 года назад

they haven't already?

@PelletJamie Год назад

🤣😂

@iowasenator 4 года назад

Allow me to ask a question. What would be the easiest and most likely way for a MADMAN to "take over" in any area of the world today? Answer: To seize the levers of power of an extant government. (If there were no government apparatus, the madman would have to build his own vehicles of suppression, enlist the support of most others, and gradually implement his wishes. This would all take valuable time and money. The point is that most human beings don't have enough of either to make this realistically feasible!) *Another Amazing video! Thanks!

@shadow-bannedinsights 2 года назад

A much shorter response: Pre-emptive attack for "safety" (e.g., saying you must accept abuse from the local state to avoid possible worse abuse from a foreign state), is never ethically legitimate.

@ornerybeefalo8387 3 месяца назад

An even shorter response: No, it’s ethical because it has morally better outcomes.

@acem82 2 года назад

I love how the worst case objections against free market order always seem to lead to just another State. Isn't that admitting failure? I mean, if the worst we can do is the best you can do, that's not an argument for your position!

@ManAgainstTheState 2 года назад

Yes, that is a common argument I see, and it does admit failure

@ornerybeefalo8387 3 месяца назад

No, because most people who advocate for states advocate for specific styles of statehood? The worst you can do is the worst that can possibly be done by anyone, not the best I can do.

@acem82 3 месяца назад

@@ornerybeefalo8387 All right, show me a State that *doesn't* engage in warlordism. Regardless of what you wish your State would be, it's just a warlord that fights with other warlords. Regardless of what you might think, a warlord *is* a form of Statism. So, when Statists claim it would devolve into warlords, what they mean is it will devolve into a State, proving that the State is something that is undesirable. The worst State is the largest, the best State is the smallest, down to the level of no State whatsoever!

@ornerybeefalo8387 3 месяца назад

@@acem82 no, not all states are run by feudal lords. There is in fact a difference between a feudal, mercantilist society and a democratic, capitalist society. In democratic states, people have control over the government through voting and advocacy, in a feudal state, the people have no sway over the government outside of armed rebellion. So when “statists” (literally everyone but anarchists) say ancap-ism devolves into warlords, they mean that 1) society devolves into states lead by singular lords who hold complete power and use force to enrich themselves and 2) this is worse than our current society.

@ornerybeefalo8387 2 месяца назад

No way all the comments got deleted

@MordredSimp 2 года назад

I'm just gonna send this when I get the Warlord Strawman

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@gavinjengel Is there any particular article you have in mind?

@Malthus0 12 лет назад

He may be talking about situations like when the local leaders in Britain invited warriors like the Saxons to protect them against raiders only to have them turn against the people that hired them.

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@OgallalaKnowhow What does money, Hayek or ABCT have to do with the topic of this article?

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@OgallalaKnowhow Are you disagreeing with something Murphy said in the article?

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@Ryukikon Thank you, I look forward to hearing what criticisms you have. Send me a private message if you want.

@infoenema1241 10 лет назад

De_Dutch101 "(neither) - NAP nor Anarcho-Capitalism will ever get rid of greedy, violent, narcissistic, power hungry people." Isn't that pretty much what I said?

@bg-on5fv 10 лет назад

That is exactly what you said. However people who only see life through only one spectrum will never understand the faults and limitations of their beliefs.

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@hob976 Thanks. I have a blog at managainstthestate.blogspot.com, but I don't host audio files there or anything. Maybe that's something I could look into doing in future.

@jeffiek 11 лет назад

"State has more-or-less reasonable and purposeful laws, and that is what it enforces." Please, name this place. I want to move there.

@Flizbap 10 лет назад

So because small scale warlords are bad, large scale warlords are good?

@MAXAREUOS 6 лет назад

Competition boosts everything, even evil. A large scale warlord with no competition is a peaceful one.

@177SCmaro 6 лет назад

Flizbap Statist "logic" in a nutshell. Warlords are bad, so we need to vote for people to be warlords because if they aren't, someone else might be. How that solves the damned problem I still don't know.

@MAXAREUOS 6 лет назад

That's simple 177SCmaro, it solves the problem of responsibility. If an elected "warlord" keep messing up, people might vote for other "warlords" and that's why he must act responsibly. It happens everyday in the free market, you already "vote" with your money for professionals to do jobs for you.

@stevenwu235 6 лет назад

Shadow light roflmao. you are hilarious. stop falling asleep during econ class

@177SCmaro 6 лет назад

Shadow light How on Earth is that responsibility? If a politician promises X in exchange for my vote and he failed to deliver X in your mind it's holding him responsible by hoping that years later he might get voted out of office (or not) in exchange for a new guy who promises X? Tell me, just how many times does the voter have to get fucked over before you'd admit these politicians are not actually being held responsible, especially in the way you or I would for breaking a contract? On top of that, this is nothing like how a free-market operates. If I agree to pay Samsung 700 bucks for a phone and they send me an empty box I can sue them. If I send a politician a vote in exchange for, say, lower taxes and not only does he not lower taxes but actually increase them (worse then an "empty box", more like if Samsung sent me a bill in that box) what recourse do I have to hold him responsible? Wait a few years, vote for someone else, hope they get elected, and hope he also doesn't also fail to keep his promise? How is he being held personally accountable? I'm out a vote and my money taken via taxes, among other things, not only can I not sue him, he still gets to keep his position, money, and benefits for years. So, I ask again, how does "we need to vote for bad people to rule over us because if they don't, someone else might" solve the god damned problem of bad people abusing their power over others?

@someman7 11 лет назад

In order to prevent constant conflict between mercenary security orgs, the alliances with standardized laws would have to emerge, which would unite militias into a police force. Their interest would be to crush the weaker security firm with incompatible laws. Through unnecessary conflict, we would reach the state akin to the one now present. Yes, people should be coerced to fund all things that are public good. People aren't isolated islands, since all benefit, all should pay for it.

@travisthompson1679 2 года назад

Man the comments are very cursed sometimes. I think the best way to get the ancap position across is just to keep asking whether theft is wrong or not. At the end of the day the person either has to agree that theft is wrong or has to list and justify all the situations in which it's acceptable. Almost no one wants to be on the side of theft is okay. When you start trying to get into particulars about every little aspect you end up in the Mark Twain quote about arguing with idiots. We can work out the particulars later. Right now we have to agree that theft is wrong just like we agreed that slavery is wrong. Anyway, keep up the good fight Man.

@mattwavle 6 лет назад

Excellent review of the issue.

@someman7 11 лет назад

When faced with violent force (eg. militias), sometimes force is the only way you can respond. You using caps lock doesn't make me wrong, and I have no reason to "give up" anything.

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@OgallalaKnowhow Initial position is a pretty common notion in all science. It means the start of the time period we're about to focus on.

@j3rdog 11 лет назад

..and besides even if I grant your entire argument it's tantamount to saying. "Hey I've got cancer but it's not worth getting rid of because there's a possibility it could come back one day."

@hob976 12 лет назад

Graham, your videos are simply excellent. You should have a podcast so I can listen to these on my ipod at work... Is there a website?

@Malthus0 12 лет назад

''It is subject to things such as inflation, deflation, counterfeit etc'' Well if there is competing currency then unreliable currency would be weeded out. Reputation would be very important. As for counterfeit. Selgin's work on private coinage during the industrial revolution show how innovative the firms could be in preventing it.

@sukathodos 11 лет назад

"...you would be forced back anyway." Keep in mind the market would be as averse to a set of only two competing security firms as it would be to just one. Any single firm would have many competitors, so even if it became stronger than average, becoming violently aggressive would always be a losing strategy since the rest would align to defend themselves.

@tefinnegan5239 Год назад

Wouldn't they be aligning to protect their clients?

@Luciferofom 11 лет назад

No one plans to, but most people would admit that it's dangerous world and we may someday. Outside of that, I think we are in accord. My apologies for my outburst.

@Barakon 3 года назад

Henlowo here I am, of the song of the wagtail, path of the dolphins protect pet by the owls talons galore.

@Romeo-le2ez 3 года назад

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@OgallalaKnowhow Yes, that's what I've been saying. The problem twistycat constructed is redundant.

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@OgallalaKnowhow He's responding to a very specific objection in this piece. If you want to know more about the kind of society that he's envisioning, I suggest reading his short book Chaos Theory which you can find online.

@Shaitan051 10 лет назад

Your precious "agencies" would BE the warlords. Hell, I shouldn't even be saying agencies with an 'S', the moment 2 larger agencies remember their business classes from highschool they'll merge and crush their competitors, possibly not even in the business sense, before they can retaliate (and one would hope before all the countries with a cohesive military instead of a bunch of rival companies come for the all-you-can-stripmine buffet)

@OgallalaKnowhow 12 лет назад

@grahampwright Twistycat's problem was the one I amplified ---- there is no such thing as an initial position beyond hypothetical thought exercises. Your response was to say that "a society with a state is more vulnerable to tyranny than a stateless society." I am saying that this claim of yours is redundant on the grounds I previously gave. And that twistycat has good reason to be skeptical precisely because the evolution of actually existing power and property relations is what matters.

@shawnspringer4872 11 лет назад

That's the only role a government should have; maintain balance to ensure the mechanism of instant economic feedback (i.e. the free market) continues to opperate unimpeded. If the public favors public transit then government facitlitaes taxes on private transit and that money in used to directly subsidize ONLY public transit systems. Once one seperates the decision from the benefit/cost, liability becomes concentrated in one area and reward in another. Eventually, the bubble must burst...

@Luciferofom 11 лет назад

I don't know what would give money value*. & More useful.* Pardon the errors.

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@OgallalaKnowhow Murphy's not talking about the transition from states to anarchy at that point. He's saying from an "initial" situation of anarchy, it's much harder for the tyrant to emerge. The problem you allude to about how to rectify the injustices caused by having a state is a totally separate issue (Rothbard and Hoppe have both written on this). Twistycat misunderstood the point Murphy was making, and it seems you have too.

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@OgallalaKnowhow Well could you rephrase the point he (Murphy) is making in a way that you would find satisfactory?

@Malthus0 11 лет назад

It is well known that the Saxons were invited by the local Romano-British dictator to defend against the invasions by the Picts in the North. The Romans had long since left. How these mercenaries were remunerated or what the deal was I can't remember but the upshot of the whole thing was that they sized Kent, & immigration started from the continent leading to centuries of slow expansion & conquest.

@LeordRedhammer 11 лет назад

Scary stuff. :)

@streetcrazykenny 11 лет назад

Prohibition was a statist construct, not anarchism. Also, prohibition doesn't have the same market force as anarchism. Private judges would be given authority by customers, like any private sector entity. And private judges won't have the conflict of interest of enforcing their decision - they would be enforced by the parties in regards to reputation. Private banks would also want to hold a good reputation, so they would take considerable steps.

@Luciferofom 11 лет назад

Exactly. Money, regardless of the government it is placed under, cannot be completely trusted. I don't care what anyone says about gold. In a society which relies on individual resourcefulness and clan-based connections, even gold is virtually useless. Iron would be far more valuable. That's where my knowledge base in this regard ends. What I don't know what would give money any value. In most primitive governed societies, cattle were money, as they were more valuable. Just a thought. Cheers.

@shawnspringer4872 11 лет назад

Extremely logical discussion. However, each point seems to rest upon the assumption that people will do what is rationally in their best interest and that without an external authority to provide inital security, the confidence required for any economic system to function cannot develop. Parents 'force' children to goto school until they have the ability to make decisions rationally. Otherwise, people do what they feel. Birthrate is inversely proportional to rationality!

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@OgallalaKnowhow I don't know what the big deal is. He used the term initial in a totally conventional sense. He was responding to a specific objection, that from an initial position of anarchy, it would be more difficult to set up a tyrannical state than it would be from an initial position of having a state. I don't see what's hard to understand or controversial about that.

@OgallalaKnowhow 12 лет назад

@OgallalaKnowhow Beyond the conjecture and assertions that are a standard for most Austrian-libertarian pedantry, the only points Murphy seems to make is that 1) the violence built into contract theory of the state is worse and more pervasive than warlords (he uses the term "rogue agencies"?) could ever be. And 2), a collective concept of justice based on non-violence and voluntaryism could replace state legal institutions.

@ThingWhatKicks 11 лет назад

Yes it is. Every time I write something, your knowledge factor increases by an order of magnitude.

@sukathodos 11 лет назад

"Yet in the end, it still exists." Exactly. I'm not portraying voluntarism as the solution to all the ills of humanity, simply as a better system than government. Human trafficking is still a problem, even under the most developed states. Deterioration into a totalitarian regime is still a risk, even in the least corrupt republics. It will always be harder for would-be dictators to gain power over a voluntarist society than a state, since the entire state would have to built up from scratch.

@Kamfrenchie 11 лет назад

what do you dislike about it ?

@someman7 11 лет назад

Iteratively improved (in consultancy with experts) laws are better than none.

@shawnspringer4872 11 лет назад

Without negative feedback approaching their tolerances, people will exert the least possible effort; they won't LEARN to think. What is considered reasonable will be normalized as time passes; people have more children, less resources to educate and thus less rational thought per capita. So eventually, what holds your arguement together, is eroded away. Without a counter-weight to assure that for each newly discovered benefit, no entity can benefit at the expense of another; the sys collapses.

@sukathodos 11 лет назад

"Violence always achieves any aim" Narrowly defined perhaps, but broader goals will be undermined in the process. Like you said, it follows a cost-benefit analysis. All I'm saying is that it's possible for a free society to function in such a way that the costs of violence outweigh the benefits in enough cases for the society to be sustainable. You seem to be claiming such a thing is simply, utterly, impossible.

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@mriswithmoo You seem confused about what a monopolist is. Can I suggest you watch my video series called Law Without Government, so that at least you know what kind of society I'm talking about, and we can agree on definitions, etc? I would like to hear your alternative solution, but not until you have watched my videos. PM me if you want a discussion outside of the character-limits of youtube comments.

@j3rdog 11 лет назад

"Once I put the notion of force within one company which would subdue all other companies " How are they going to subdue all the other companies? Start a war with them? As if that doesn't cost money. Are all their customers going to pay this increased overhead and not take their business to a lower priced company? I've been over this already but all you had to say was that they have a "sphere of influence" and some other hyperbole that was border line mystiicism. (cont)

@EAN743 11 лет назад

one of the problomes with the anarcho-capitalist model(ACM) is the constant underestimation of the power of violence. in a very real sense the world today is very much like the model -with countries replacing the protection agencies (PA). the main difference that while PA in the model are not necessarily regional monopolies ,countries always are. and tet the world does contain rouge countries like north korea , a country with a failing economy that still manage to exist for quite a while.

@OgallalaKnowhow 12 лет назад

@grahampwright If I'm correct in assuming that Murphy's piece follows the same logic as Hayek's book on private monies than I suggest reading G. L. Shackle's Epistemtics and Economics. He argues against the assumptions underlying Austrian Business Cycle Theory to reach Keynesian conclusions on the basis that human creativity, subjectivity and ignorance creates powerful tendencies to disequilibrium and involuntary unemployment. There is a good interview on mises.org from 1983.

@Luciferofom 11 лет назад

Fair enough. I almost completely agree with you in that regard. I mean don't get me wrong, metallic-based currencies have their place, to be sure. I would prefer the gold standard to fiat-based. My qualm was that for the overwhelming majority of human history (paleolithic & mesolithic) metallic money was virtually worthless because society had not developed an appreciation for it yet, For those people, it it's not usable for much more than being moved or melted down, both are hard or nonviable.

@EnhancedNightmare 11 лет назад

Interesting points, however I still remain unconvinced. Keep up the work maybe you will sway me someday. :) Okay now my question: How would society you propose defend against aggressive political identities led by total governments? An example in history would be 18th century Poland which was very free country often described as anarchy by neighbors. These neighbors were centrally controlled aggressive states: Germany, Austrian and Russian Empire. This led to destruction of more free country.

@sukathodos 11 лет назад

"the one who has the military force" If there were only "one" organization with force, you would be right - it would define the laws, having a monopoly. That organization would essentially be a government. Voluntarism is different in that there would be consumer choice, so demand would constrain the security firms' behavior. Are you saying multiple, competing firms would inevitably lead to a monopoly of force? On fairness - that seemed to be where you were going with "under what law?" so nm.

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@twistycat He means it's easier for a wannabe tyrant to take over an existing state apparatus than to set up a new state where there was previously no state. He'd have to set up a political strucure, bureaucracy, a tax system, armies, courts, police, central banking, education monopoly, etc... from scratch. Hence a society with a state is more vulnerable to tyranny than a stateless society.

@Seaileanu Год назад

I want to be a warlord one day.

@jeffiek 11 лет назад

"State has more-or-less reasonable and purposeful laws, and that is what it enforces." I already told you.

@feckingtediousgoogl 12 лет назад

If by "hired" you mean pledged loyalty under threat of force, then yes, the serfs hired the knights.

@desmondgorven3897 10 лет назад

Yes. The Somali government and other governments, set bad examples by ruling people who did not consent to the imposed rules. Then we point to other people following the examples set by governments, and say: "Bad warlords!"

@sukathodos 11 лет назад

Again, perfect conditions aren't necessary, merely sufficient approximations. What about my statements would require a perfect or near-perfect market? Transparency would be easily attained through third-party ratings agencies, competing for better accuracy. As technological capabilities for obtaining and analyzing information rapidly improve, decisions in a complex market become simpler to make. Without obfuscatory gov't practices, the market would be even more efficient and self-rectifying.

@GavinEngel 12 лет назад

Would you devote an entire lecture to the current situation in Somalia?

@Luciferofom 12 лет назад

How would said society deal with the unreliability of money. It is subject to things such as inflation, deflation, counterfeit etc. In addition, evolutionarily, money is totally useless. Good ideas here. I am quite open-minded to it. I just keep tripping on that. Thanks.

@vaporwavevocap 9 лет назад

So what you're saying is, no it wouldn't happen because there would be no reason for it to happen.

@vaporwavevocap 9 лет назад

Seems legit.

@davidmaharaj6782 5 лет назад

But who would bomb the roads?

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@mriswithmoo Right back at you. It's because I realise how much of a dick people are that I don't want any monopolist, with all that power concentrated in one organisation. I want competition precisely to mitigate the negative aspects of human nature. I advocate "law by money" only in the same sense that I advocate "food by money". Do the 1% have more say than the 99% about what food gets produced? What is the opposite anyway? "Law by wise angelic men". Where will we find these angels?

@cupocity303 11 лет назад

Now I'm not sure about all the specifics about Yugoslavia. Only anecdotal evidence from my parents who lived there and some reading about it. But Tito (the dictator) supposedly kept peace and order between the Croats, serbs, Bosnians. They were itching to get at each other and fight it out but he kept Yugoslavia peaceful. But they eventually did get at each other after he died and Yugoslavia split up. I guess anarchy can be good amongst a progressive, educated society, not islamic type nations

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@mriswithmoo You're the one assuming government is made up of angels. The 1% are the state. The best thing for we the 99% would be to remove the state, which the 1% uses to wield power over us. Firms don't have the kind of "power" that states do. States get their income by threatening you with violence, and you have no other choice but to comply. Firms have to satisfy you if they want income, and if they stop satisfying you, you can simply stop buying from them.

@OgallalaKnowhow 12 лет назад

@grahampwright I'm disagreeing with the premise of an "initial position" of either anarchism or statehood, whatever those terms mean. If his argument rests on a distinction between the "initial position" between anarchy and statehood than I must disagree with the whole article!

@OgallalaKnowhow 12 лет назад

@grahampwright ...Because you don't have "market forces" without money and business cycles.

@feckingtediousgoogl 11 лет назад

See, my understanding is the Saxons-Angels-Jutes that invaded Britain were just that: invaders. My understanding is there were some Goths in Britain at the time of the Roman evacuation but they weren't hired. It would be more analogous to the local police department taking over after the collapse of the government. The locals are left with two choices: accept the status quo or resist a group of well armed, well trained and highly motivated "warriors".

@badpanda84 11 лет назад

""If the public favors public transit then government facitlitaes taxes on private transit and that money in used to directly subsidize ONLY public transit systems"" How often would the public be consulted... wouldnt it be a problem if the goverment invested say million of dollars to subsidize public transit only to find out next week the public changed there mind. So we would have half a railway ( for example) being built because the public changed there minds 6 months later

@j3rdog 11 лет назад

They would have a monopoly of force? You're assuming the very point you're trying to prove.

@OgallalaKnowhow 12 лет назад

@grahampwright From rereading the article, it seems Murphy is talking about a contemporary transition into "free market paradise" and there isn't any reference to a 'initial position' beyond the hypothetical anarchist society A and state society B. The problem you are constructing is redundant. A prerequisite for a tyrant is to be the leader of a state society. So, to say that "in a stateless society it would be more difficult to set up a tyrannical state" is self serving at best.

@OgallalaKnowhow 12 лет назад

@grahampwright You say conventional sense, I say completely hypothetical sense that only exists for the sake of argument and has not bearing on actual human history. There is no "initial position of anarchy" beyond liberal theorizing and pedantry. In that sense, my point was to reaffirm twistycat's scepticism about applying this notional conception of "from anarchy to state society" to real power and production/distribution.

@wunwunx 11 лет назад

lol @ terran republic. Planetside 2 reference

@sicktoaster 12 лет назад

1. People are too polarized. There would be pro-life and pro-choice agencies, and even if some people wanted to sign "peace contracts" sizeable agencies would not compromise. 2. If it does become "an orderly mechanism" then you have a STATE and these laws based on negotiations are the new laws and constitution. The only way for anarchocapitalism to 'work' is if it's really a plutocratic oligarchy masquerading as anarchy.

@infoenema1241 10 лет назад

As expected, this video explains how Anarcho-capitalism is dependent on people adhering to the non-aggression principle. That is not reality. The existence of greedy, violent, narcissistic, power hungry people is our reality. In my opinion the only way to eliminate government is to eliminate “need” itself through the evolution of technology. In a world that has developed machines that could produce free energy wirelessly for the entire world, as in the Tesla model or something similar, there would be no market for energy. Let’s say the machines could function for thousands of years without the need for repair or maintenance. Add to that machines that can replicate food, clothing, medicine or any other device imaginable and could also function for thousands of years without need of repair or maintenance. Let’s say these machines were able to recycle materials at 100% efficiency eliminating the need to increase the amount of new raw materials needed for replication at any significant level. Money would no longer exist and neither would the profit motivation. There would be no need for markets, free or otherwise, because you could simply replicate whatever you want. This is the only scenario I can imagine in which greed and violence would have no purpose.

@dedutch101 10 лет назад

Anarcho-Capitalism in conjuction with the NAP isn't dependent on anyting but voluntary transactions and an absence of coercion. The rest is up to humanity itself. Under this system you are more then welcome to create your own Utopia where money doesn't exist but just remember that the RBE, technology, NAP nor Anarcho-Capitalism will ever get rid of greedy, violent, narcissistic, power hungry people. Only an individual can overcome such human traits by personal growth, study and hard work.

@kristiank1276 6 лет назад

"The existence of greedy, violent, narcissistic, power hungry people is our reality. " who would gravitate towards seeking power over others, which is exactly why we cant have a state.

@177SCmaro 6 лет назад

Info Enema Anarcho-capitalism is dependent on people adhering to the non-aggression principle. Compared to what? Isn't that true of EVERY society? Isn't socialism dependent on people adhering to socialist principles? Isn't a republic dependent on people adhering to the principles of representation? Isn't your own idea of a techno-utopia, really just a modern rehash of the idea of "Heaven on Earth", dependent on the idea that human beings will forgo aggression in the absence of material scarcity? (which, btw, did not turn out so well for the mice in just such an experiment. Google "mouse utopia experiment")

@yat282 7 лет назад

So warlords wouldn't take over because the biggest one would stop them?

@j3rdog 11 лет назад

If it's more than one company how is it a monopoly?

@sukathodos 11 лет назад

No, people would choose contracts that outlaw slavery since it isn't a universally preferred behavior. If there were a few individuals who wanted slavery to be legal, they would face the additional pressure of being ostracized by the rest of the market. Do *you* always use force to get what you want? If not, why assume that's some unchangeable part of human nature? Violence is self-defeating in the long run. When people realize this they act non-violently out of self-interest - and empathy.

@JohnDaCajun 7 лет назад

What happens if one does not believe that killing their 1 year old child is murder in this system? Genuine question.

@ManAgainstTheState 7 лет назад

They will be treated just like any other murderer

@themusicman669 Год назад

Why does that mean we need to give large amounts of power to fascist sociopaths?

@j3rdog 11 лет назад

(p2) When someone makes a bunch of bs claims I use the Socratic method such as I'm doing here. I certainly never make a bunch of unsupported claims riddled with vacuous terms and phrases like "sphere of influence" and " in a sense ", and I certainly am always clear with the meaning of the terms I use ESPECIALLY if I think they may be outside of the norm of what most people use them to mean. As in your case "monopoly" and "government". (cont)

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@mriswithmoo What is the state if not sanctioned gangsterism?! Having just one dominant firm - the state - is far worse and more corrupt than having multiple competing firms. How can you worry about "a few firms" dominating, but not worry about one single monopolist dominating?! You agree that concentrated power is a poor idea, but disagree that it would be better to have dispersed power? That makes no sense...

@Mlogan11 8 лет назад

The problem with a Stateless society is it doesn't account for man's insatiable greed and selfishness. In the beginning, there was no such thing as a State, we were all free to do as we pleased. States eventually form as a response to people banding together to horde resources and seize the resources claimed by others. The stronger man takes the best resources for himself. The stronger group controls the best resources for their own use. Groups of people from areas where resources are lacking attempt to dislodge groups residing where resources are located. This builds until enough people establish a group large enough (The State) to stop other groups from dislodging them and also establish rules to allow this large entity to function more cohesively. If there isn't enough people to establish such control, then sporadic fighting over the limited resources will remain in effect.

@ManAgainstTheState 8 лет назад

+Mlogan11 On the contrary, it is the State society that doesn't account for man's greed and selfishness. In the Stateless society, incentives are such that individual interests are most closely aligned with the interests of wider society.

@Mlogan11 8 лет назад

+Man Against The State "In the Stateless society, incentives are such that individual interests are most closely aligned with the interests of wider society." I challenge you to detail what "incentives" are available that will actually work to prevent an organized group of individuals who have decided to band together and rob the non organized individuals of their resources? There will always be opportunists who will seek to exploit others for their own gain, which is a problem for both the State and Stateless societies. Weren't the American Indians basically a Stateless society? That didn't work out so well for them against State organized Europeans.

@ManAgainstTheState 8 лет назад

+Mlogan11 People want security and are willing to pay for it. This is what creates the incentive for entrepreneurs to provide security. PS "an organized group of individuals who have decided to band together and rob the non organized individuals of their resources" is exactly what a State is.

@racionador 8 лет назад

so you are admting that goverment is inevitable?

@angelgodplace 8 лет назад

Not if people come to the rational agreement that state is immoral. Once people reject the state it won't come back. It's like expecting for slavery to be popular again. And we never had a free society. There has always been slavery and the use of force.

@sukathodos 11 лет назад

Humans are neither perfectly rational nor totally irrational. Some people are more rational than others, chiefly due to differences in parenting, education, etc., so I think there is room for improvement. In appealing to a potential future rational society (a goal shared even by most statists) I mean a society in which people are *more* rational, not free of all irrationality. This is hardly utopic, and is certainly more realistic than assuming people are universally evil as you seem to.

@someman7 11 лет назад

Thanks once more for the insults, it really helps drive your point home, the ad-hominems. The problem is you keep calling them firms. That assumes a definition rendered meaningless in an anarchy, where force is distributed and used at will. Heck, even companies in well-defined legal systems put their own benefit before the workers' and even clients'. It takes regulation, and not only "wallet voting" to keep them from going rogue. Giving them the power to enforce, let alone define laws is madness

@lucieneadg5837 Год назад

"a private bank could freeze their assets" In a world of freezeable assets you will never get rid of centralization.

@sukathodos 11 лет назад

Prohibition is an invalid example because it was a gov't ban on a good with enormous demand. The gangs could only exist through the the sale of alcohol. Gangs tend to be associated with black markets because consumer choice is so limited. In a voluntarist society, there would be no black markets. Imagine Target and Walmart resorting to gang warfare. Yes, law would be defined by consumer demand. Would this be any less fair than law defined by votes and coalitions?

@dwarfenhammer434 7 лет назад

I propose that a company that holds vast military power will feel the desire to use it- if just because the power otherwise depreciates in value. The returns will also equal the assets seized, possible split among shareholders (citizens). These are effectively the actions of a medieval warlord. This brings to mind the mafia. The mafia asks for protection money, but is it really 'asking'? The government asks for taxes, but is it really 'asking'? At minute 9 it is said insurance companies will have to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars upon a death. I doubt that is true for many people, and if there are many murders (such as might occur in a government shift), life insurance will become either impractically expensive or will collapse from lack of government subsidies. Most gangs are made by armed poor people. These people have no assets to seize nor utilities to remove. They would predominantly steal from other poor people as they increase in power, and will take to replace any seized assets. Police generally stop these squabbles even though it will likely never affect someone they know. Do we rely upon the morals of these private defense firms?

@j3rdog 11 лет назад

(p6)But it gets worse because then you said.." And I never said they would merge, again this is a product of your construct. " really?? For context here's what I said... "How are they going to subdue all the other companies? Start a war with them?" And you replied.. "Mergers, alliances and war." I mean it's right fucking there for anyone to read! How is this a product of my construct? Are these words only appearing on my computer screen?

@boneyard1125 12 лет назад

All this argumentation cannot overcome the facts of history. With the breakdown of the Roman Empire the medieval peasants hired security guards to protect their property. Those security guards came to be known an knights and the peasants became serfs. I can hire a private army to protect me from other armies, but who protects the army that I have hired? Who protects us from the police? That is a matter that our culture has worked on for hundreds of years. The answer is imperfect but significant

@Kamfrenchie 11 лет назад

what do you find so unreasonnable and unpurposeful in swiss laws ?

@654321poiuytrewq0987 9 лет назад

where are you getting law biding citizen when there is no law? or by law do you mean natural law?

@ManAgainstTheState 9 лет назад

william waddell Market-based law; laws produced by competing providers of law

@654321poiuytrewq0987 9 лет назад

Man Against The State those aren't law. laws are set in stone

@ManAgainstTheState 9 лет назад

william waddell What stone? Where? What does the stone say?

@654321poiuytrewq0987 9 лет назад

Man Against The State its a phrase it means they are definite. the free market's rules change all the time since its guided by the needs or wants of the majority which is constantly changing aswell. you demonstrated in your law without government video

@ManAgainstTheState 9 лет назад

william waddell If they are definite than what are they? And don't the laws change all the time now, with government? What makes you think they would change more often in a market system than under government?

@j3rdog 11 лет назад

Corporations are a creation of government and would not exist in an anarchist society. Perhaps you are using the term 'corporation" interchangeably with "large business"? If so the cost of building an army would greatly increase their overhead putting them at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors. Also , would you freely support such a business that took this type of action? With a government you have no choice but to pay for it's war machine.

@sukathodos 11 лет назад

"There would always be a black market..." Not without governments to ban products. In a free and enlightened society, the demand for slaves would be vanishingly small, and no one would do business with slave owners or traders. Free markets allow solutions for any social problem since the values of the society are directly represented. The only real problem is transforming society into one capable of making the rational choices necessary to dismantle gov't and sustain a non-violent marketplace.

@rgemail 5 месяцев назад

... and what if the slave-produced products weren't marketed as such and cost fractions of a dollar what the ethically produced products cost? What would the poorest among your 'free and enlightened society' choose to buy, when their choice is a cartful of food or a few items for their family for the month?

@jamosmithlol 12 лет назад

@mriswithmoo so obvious but never addressed

@j3rdog 11 лет назад

In your last reply to me you said you were not making anything up to suit your argument. Now here you are redefining monopoly. All the "force" would not be in the hands on any particular entity.

@ManAgainstTheState 12 лет назад

@twistycat You're not making sense. If you get rid of the state, you've got rid of the "levers of power", the "mechanism of subjugation". And "anarchist-capitalist state"?! Contradiction much?

@ThingWhatKicks 11 лет назад

That too is fair enough, but I don't think anyone is planning to return to the paleolithic era. The proper monetary system is no monetary system, however. Let the free market prevail. Of course, when a free market in money prevails, precious metals are invariably used.

@j3rdog 11 лет назад

(p1) You're defending an affirmative position here so you're the one that has to make an argument. Which by the way (pot kettle black) you have not done. All you have done is make a string of assertions. All I'm doing is asking questions and watching you contradict yourself and change your position post de facto. When I make arguments 90% of the time they will either be disjunctive syllogisms or categorical propositions. (cont)