Minds AMAaAC - Ask me Anything about Anarcho-capitalism [2017-01-19]

Preface

It is a misconception that anarcho-capitalists are against the services goverments provide, they just want the opportunity to offer these services themselves because of perceived inefficiencies or sub-optimal solutions.

 

Table of Content

Until Minds-blogs get anchor-links (for a clickable table of content) you can use your browser's "Find in Page" function for following [tags] in order to jump to the sections.

1. [20161211PrivateArmy] How can a nonarchist society defend itself from foreign armies?
2. [20161211SocietalUnity] What is the glue of a nonarchist society? (Discussion in a separate blog)
3. [20161212RuleMaking] How are rules (not laws, mind you) created and enforced?
4. [20161212Monopolies] (( Yet unanswered, but with some ideas listed))
5. [20170114Passports] Is there a citizenship in a nonarchist society? How are passports issued?
6. [20170117AnimalAbuse] How can a nonarchist society prevent animal abuse?
7. [CommentSection]

The Idea

I watched the debate between Redpanels and Sargon of Akkad: Debating Classical Liberalism and Anarcho-capitalism. I think Redpanels could have answered many questions Sargon had if he would have had the time to think about it. Thankfully Sargon is a very good debater and helped Redpanels to explain his answers to Sargon's audience.

Questions about a state-less society are about concrete results: Crime, investigation and punishment, not letting the poor, old and sick hunger in the street... This is a good thing, but I think a failure of anarcho-capitalists is, that they quickly answer the question from their perspective of a functioning anarcho-captialistic society.

Brief answers are the polite thing to do in a public debate, but will always sound naive if someone answers from an unfamiliar perspective. Here in written form I have the time and place to digress and explain the steps how the simple answer came to be.

I personally could be described as a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist, or nonarchist, how I would label it. I'm not of the emotional anti-state crowd and I don't think a nonarchist society would be an utopia by design.

I do believe that you can recreate all the good things states provide now, while protecting these goods against future governmental changes or the errors of a small group of well-meaning autocrats.

But enough about me, I'm interested in your questions!

Please post your questions in the comments. Longer answers will be copied in the blog itself (and might be part of a video).

 

 

Here is something I always wanted to ask an ancap: how will the citizens defend themselves from foreign invasion if there is no taxpayer-funded army to protect the citizens? Voluntary militias can only go so far, and today's battles, specialized training is necessary to stay competitive in war. - @Ghost_of_Buckley

[20161211PrivateArmy] 

First, I want do make a library reference: Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy has answered this in the chapter on Private Defense. 

Second, I want to debunk a myth even some ancaps have about your disposable income in a nonarchist society: Without the state’s taxes we will all be rich.

No we won’t, we will have about the same disposable income.

Why? Because what you don’t pay in taxes you have now to pay for infrastructure, insurers and the social welfare projects you want to support.

The difference between taxes and these contributions is that we probably will have different suppliers (instead of only one) and it might be easier to pick what exactly you want to support (e.g. streets with many lines / streets with bicycle lanes / streets with trees).

The nonarchist theory is that competition between these suppliers leads to a better overall quality with the same costs, or the same quality with lower costs.

 

Before I come to military defence I want to digress to fire brigades and fire insurances.

We have fire brigades to protect against fire damage (well duh... but it is important if we come to military services).

If you live in an area where fire brigades are state funded now your fire insurance premiums will go up after we switch to a nonarchist society.

State-funded fire brigades are a subsidy for property owners to prevent or reduce fire damage. As insurers know a fire brigade exists they can assume fires are put out before reaching other properties: Less risk, lower premiums.

It is very likely that neighbourhoods, in cooperation with insurers, would contract a fire brigade for an area: Even if everyone is a greedy bastard, this is the most cost-effective solution against the danger of fire. Greed is also the vector to introduce fire prevention measures: Insurers might offer premium reductions or even subsidies for people implementing prevention measures.

 

So you see even without a state you will need an organization offering state-like services.

Next to fire brigades you will need police services, courts of justice, welfare services (even greedy bastards don’t want riots or see poor and sick people dying in front of their entrances) and also military services.

 

We have military services to protect against damage from aggressive actions of foreign societies.

If you live in an area where armies are state funded now your property insurance premiums will go up after we switch to a nonarchist society.

State-funded armies are a subsidy for property owners to prevent or reduce damage from aggressive actions of foreign societies. As insurer know an army exists they can assume... okay you get my point.

 

There are some important differences where we can’t compare a state army to a nonarchist army.

What are the objectives of the conflict in the first place?

A nonarchist society is too incoherent do be a danger for your own territory and free trade usually does not hurt you, but improves your own nation... We see this already with democracies which are less likely to be aggressors themselves or to be attacked by a pre-emptive strike compared to the monarchies and dictatorships of old. As a nonarchist society is even less likely to collect enough resources for a war of aggression, the primary danger would be ideological, i.e. my citizens want to life like the people in the nonarchist society.

What is the target of a foreign army?

A nonarchist society has no capital and no government which can surrender. So attacking a nonarchist society will possibly come down to a war of attrition where each neighbourhood is a potential halt of your advancement. Yes you can target infrastructure, but due to competition and different suppliers there are probably more targets you have to hit before a defensive counter strike occurs.

But of course bad things will happen.

In the case of a sabre-rattling, ideologically or expansion-motivated warmonger in a neighbouring country the risk of an attack increases dramatically.

This increases the premium cost of property insurances (not only at the border, but over the whole country, because enemies have plains and rockets now) and in second order can decrease wages and increase living costs (insurance costs of infrastructure providers will skyrocket).

Again a cost-effective possibility to reduce the risk is to organize a standing army, equip and train them well, make manoeuvres into a public event, make guard posts and border patrols present and so on. This would be the fire brigade: In case of an emergency, they stop the spreading of damage and their presence reduces the risk of spreading damage.

But there is also an analogy to fire prevention: People might get a premium reduction if they agree to be trained to modern standards. If it is widespread knowledge that about half of the population is mobilized (with the before mentioned standing army as officers) and above all is quite well trained and equiped it further spoils the fun of attacking a nonarchist society. The same cost-reduction can be expanded to employers who agree to grant time off for military training (this is already done for voluntary fire brigades now).

But there is one further step of prevention: You can’t argue with fire, but you can argue with neighbouring nations. The defence contractors of a nonarchist society will possible select and fund a diplomatic corps to reduce the risk of an attack. It will be seen what these corps can offer to possible allies (given that it has no tax-funded government able to back a promise): Data havens, high quality personnel (even mercenaries), access to medical institutions in case of emergency, promise to stay neutral in war times, promise to take a certain amount of refugees (using existing emergency housing) and so on are things I can think of immediately.

Again I try to argue from the reasoning of a greedy society of greedy people, because this is the worst case scenario for any society: All people are greedy with no higher virtue.

That this is not the case and many people actually want to help others and ostracize people who are known to be only greedy just helps my argument. And in the case of military service there is no reason why the people of a nonarchist society shouldn't be patriotic and want to be an active part of protecting their neighbors.

- 11. December 2016

 

 

In an AnCap society, what would happen if a part of the population gathers in a group that wants to destroy said society? What brings unity to the community? What is there to stop a controversial conflict from escalation? And if there is something, how is it enforced? - @VergiliusRex

[20161211SocietalUnity]

This question inspired a great discussion which I had to move to another post: https://www.minds.com/blog/view/655296489219694604

A nonarchist society has no problem with diversity and even with different ideologies, as long as no person or property is violated.

The most positive, ideological opposite of a nonarchist society is a monastery. A monastery is usually a collective society with a strong autocratic leadership. But this is no problem: This monastery buys a sufficiently sized plot of land and builds its society on it. It probably gets donations and produces some goods in excess: Guidance, rest, contemplation, works of art, the monastery brew of beer, their own brand of honey… and they trade with the rest of the nonarchist society to pay for basic infrastructure. And if they build a self-sufficient clerical hospital with cost exemptions for poor people (like some still exist in Austria): All the better for society as a whole.

The same can be said for a communistic manufacturer, where all of the workers have a shared ownership on everything the company owns, including company housing and a more or less closed market.

 

But I believe the original question of @VergiliusRex was also about institutionalized protection of society.

Even with @Tsai’s help this is still a tough nut to crack. To stay on track every time I omit my answer to an anticipated follow-up question I include this sign: [♫]

There would be probably a short, understandable foundational document, where self-ownership, ownership and contracts are defined, as well as making some negative rules (you are not allowed to...) explicit. This might be a single intellectual effort, or grown like a harmonized standard form contract. It’s not indispensable to have this, but it would be something you could ask every adult to sign before becoming a part of the society.

The highest common values of a nonarchist society are personal rights and property rights, thus the basic negative rules will be about murder, aggression, coercion, theft and fraud.

In a state you have police (deescalation / prevention of crimes / ending of ongoing crimes) [♫], criminal investigation (often part of the police) [♫], a court system [♫] and a punishment system [♫] to protect rules.

In a nonarchist society you still need these services, but there might be several suppliers.

In addition you need an organisation to provide a service which implicitly exists in a state: A trust-insurance or Dispute Resolution Organization (Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux).

This trust-insurance protects you and your property: If someone steals from you, the trust-insurance will pay for your damage and tries to recuperate their losses (if possible by catching the thief and suing the trust-insurance of the thief). If someone breaks a contract and refuses to pay for your damages your trust-insurance will do and makes the trust-insurance of the contract breaker pay for it. Of course not every trust-insurer has to do everything; some might specialize on a certain kind of contract, or only on theft-insurance.

In short a trust-insurer insures your trust in other people and is the closest thing to a state you have in a nonarchist society: It will give you a code of conduct (have a door, lock it if you are away), guidelines and basic rules it will enforce on you und under pain of fines or even ending your membership. One will be that you accept the foundational document if it exists, but in reality you will need more rules.

One will be that you are forbidden to make any legal contract with a sentenced criminal without appropriation by your trust-insurance (i.e. it’s okay to do so if you are a prison [♫]).

This rule is important as a sentenced criminal has to accept the punishment [♫] and this rule provides a huge incentive to do so: The owning association of a street [♫], the pizza delivery, the infrastructure providers wouldn’t agree to break their contracts with their respective trust-insurers just to help a petty thief.

Another rule will be that you lose coverage for any legal contract above a certain contract value with anyone without an accepted trust-insurance membership for that level. This rule in turn gives a huge incentive for people to have at least a basic membership to be able to pay for basic infrastructure and rent (everything you would get a written contract today, the hotdog stand will probably not ask for your membership number).

What makes an accepted trust-insurance? Basically only that you play by the foundational rules and have enough capital to pay for damages if your member breaks the contract (for most people: is unable or unwilling to pay).

 

And this cross-acceptance of other trust-insurers is the institutional answer to "what brings unity to the community": The threat of excluding yourself and your (soon to be ex-)members from society on any level above basic sustenance.

I hope this answers also @Tsai's question on how to get people to agree to a set of rules.

 

Regarding common morality: As long as you don't violate the foundational rules (which are all negative: You are not allowed to kill, murder, rape, violate, steal, fraud, or coerce by threatening someone with any of these) a nonarchist society has no direct way of harmonizing morality.

Indirectly nonarchism promotes true diversity. Excluding yourself from engaging with certain demographics punishes you economically. Past injustices only worked because everyone was forced to not to engage with these demographics, but without this force you are the one not getting goods, customers, employees and employers, while the rest profits on your slice of the cake.

That said most ideologies (after taking away most coercive tools by the foundational rules) add rules and guidelines positive for society: You shall be charitable, you shall not practice usury, you shall help your neighbours. All these rules restrict your greed and I don't care if you help your neighbour because you are an utilitarian, a religous person, or a do-gooder: Thank you for doing so!

- 11. December 2016

 

How would capitalism survive in an anarcho capitalist society? Let's say we have two major corporations, both having equal wealth but are competitors. Whose laws would prevail? What if one of the competitors wants to acquire the other, but the other does not want to be acquired? What if one corporation's law allows unfettered merger while the other corporation's law has anti-trust provisions? - @ObsidianGale

Do you advocate polycentric law as a means of maintaining order in a civil society, or do you advocate a different system to achieve the same essential function? - @Aseudos

[20161212RuleMaking]

@Tsai's answer (full length in comment section): Why would corporations be making laws? Or are you referring to the insurance companies that provide criminal justice? If so, then these companies shouldn't be coming up with their own laws. ((...)) If the people are moral objectivists, and they respect reason, logic and evidence, they will come to the same conclusions about what the rules should be, and there does not need to be an agency that uses force to set the rules. 

I will split @ObsidianGale's question and use this answer to talk about law/rule-making and the answer below to talk about capitalism, mergers and monopolies.

 

I don't want to be too nitpicky about definitions, but since this might be important: A law can be enforced to a point where the foundational rules would be violated (you are not allowed to kill, murder, rape, violate, steal, fraud, or coerce by threatening someone with any of these).

Why is this particularly important? Because it makes hundreds of laws impossible to create.

Basically any victimless crime is permitted. So as long you stay in a safe environment where you can't damage anyone: Have fun with your heroine [♫] (your employer and health-insurance might cancel their contracts though).

Also there is no possibility to force someone to do anything but via contractual agreements. For example your health care insurance might increase your premiums if you don't inoculate yourself or your children [♫], but they can't send child care [♫] and take your children away.

The same goes for business aquisitions. If you have an uncoerced seller and you are able to pay the asked price: Have fun with your new company. Don't forget a "hostile takeover" is nothing bad in a socieatal sense: The better company gets more resources to provide better services (more in the next answer). A hostile takeover is a risk you accept if you sell more than 49% of your shares, sometimes risks are realised however unlikley.

 

What are the interesting rule-conflicts then?

The most annoying organisation in a nonarchist society will be a private unemployment charity which wants you off their budget. They might force you to do all sort of things in order to make you employable again.

How could their rules be in conflict with others? I guess with rules made by our health insurer... but since you are currently unemployed your health insurer is probably paid by that charity and they will have an agreement or even a common interest.

The second most annoying organisation will be your health insurer and its rules might lead to conflicts with your employer, again with the possibility for cooperation between them.

The most conflict prone organisation will be your trust-insurer (see above), which wants its rules put into any contract you make, while the same is true for your contract-partner.

And my personal take on this problem is: The trust-insurer with the most accessible set of rules will get a surge of new customers, three weeks later all trust-insurers have very lightweight contract rules for daily life and will provide legal assistance for that single house you buy for yourself.

Regarding @Aseudos' question, the foundational rules are the single uniting factor of all other rule-systems. Many nonarchists and libertarians forget to mention that they assume f.e. natural rights are accepted as basis, but otherwise my description fits well to the term polycentric law.

To sum it up I think for most people following rule sets are relevant: Foundational rules, trust-insurance rules, health-insurance rules, neighbourhood-rules [♫], education/occupation-rules.

As addendum to @Tsai's answer:

Criminal justice rules in a nonarchist society should indeed be straightforward based on the foundational rules (which are themselves based on natural law theory). Still in extreme cases you need judges (comment-section: private-army example) and then you need a mechanism how you select judges and agree upon the stages of appeal.

Another thing is the amount of punishment: If I destroyed your property, tried to evade punishment and was later sentenced and fined by a court of justice. What is the amount I'm obligated to pay? Of course I have to cover the damage itself and all the police, detective and justice costs, but what is the amount I have to pay to you in total (respectively what amount your trust-insurer already payed to you)? This is an ongoing argument: Should there be an additional amount to pay for the unnecessary effort you had?

Another thing is contract enforcement: There is no perfect contract and there will always be the need for mediators and commercial courts who retroactively clarify loosely described positions. Here the relevant courts and stages of appeal will usually be included in the contract boilerplate or a standard form contract. That is not a nonarchist intervention, nearly every business I worked with already has something like this implemented (commercial courts are more affordable than public courts).

But an outright contract breaker is equal to a thief or fraud and is thus violating foundational rules (and hopefully there is a set amount of payment asked from either side in case of a broken contract).

- 12. December 2016

 

In a nonarchist society, what mechanism exists to prevent businesses from acquiring other businesses in excess? What would happen if a single individual were to come into possession of all the services for a particular area? How can the average citizen of a nonarchy defend themselves from a corporate monopoly, and how can the expansion of such a monopoly be stopped from engulfing the entire society? Essentially, how do you stop the nonarchy from becoming a corpocracy? - @Zantarus

[20161212Monopolies]

This answer also covers @ObsidianGale's question from above about capitalism and monopolies.

 

I just realized how long it will take me to finish the guide on the economics book Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard. I'm still working on chapter 1 and the chapter I would like to refere to now is chapter 10 (Monopoly and Competition) about 700 pages in the future (https://www.minds.com/blog/view/634241359888265230).

(( Answer is still compiling. I want to back up my claims with economic literature, because you are asking me not about a nonarchist solution to monopolies in particular but to the free-market solution in general. ))

- 12. December 2016

(( But there was a small exchange in the comment section fitting here: ))

@ObsidianGale: How would monopolies not created by government be dealt with a free society. 

A telecom operator or the fictional owner of the internet could render services unprofitable.

But without intellectual property laws and free contracts, people could find a way to build around that problem: Like the people did in Romania... I havn't found the original article I'm thinking of, but basically they built up a Metropolitan Area Network to circumvent the slow public internet and since Romania's building regulations are less strict they pulled high-speed cabled through apartment buildings willing to participate.

And if any such solution exists the monopoly breaks up: More and more services would switch to the more reasonable provider.

If on the other hand that monopoly would provide a perfectly reasonable service with high quality and low cost... why should anyone care that there is only one provider, at least as long they keep being the best?

https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-romanias-internet-is-so-much-faster-than-americas

- 13. January 2017

On the subject of citizenship. In an anarcho capitalist world how would passports be distributed and is it possible to believe in citizenship without a state? - @ObsidianGale

[20170114Passports]

(( Quick answer, not thoroughly researched ))

It depends on what you expect a passport to do. In the most general case it is a proof of identity, which can be used around the world.

The organisation(s) which proves this identity, could be current banks, certificate authorities like Verisign, specialised organisations for identity verification or even the rests of current public offices.

The last point could be reasonable for a "only one county goes ancap" scenario: The "Austrian Office Inc." becomes the first organisation trusted to issue internationally valid passports and also offers support to foreigners to grasp the rules of a nonarchist society, like get a temporary membership in a dispute resolution organisation specialised on tourists or traders.

To the word 'citizenship'... I could never know how language changes. In the case of Austrians I believe they feel like citizens to their culture more than citizens to the state of Austria, in that case nothing changes, only the cultural lines on the map get blurry.

- 14. January 2017

How would a nonarchist society deal with the problem of animal abuse? - @ObsidianGale

[20170117AnimalAbuse]

(( Quick answer, not thoroughly researched ))

I answer to animal cruelty, not necessarily to violations to "species appropriate husbandry"

There are some general things you can think about:

• It is probably reprehensible. People would shun known abusers (nobody can be forced to do business with an abuser).
• Abusers could violate property rights. Here research could help to make objective claims i.e. cortisol levels, on top of trespassing
• It could be just against the rules of your insurers and landlords.
• Abusing animals is a predictor for criminal and violent behavior, thus "trust insurers" could prohibit their clients to do business with animal abusers.
• Same direction: Trust insurers would require animal abusers to follow psychological therapy before insuring them

- 17. January 2017

 

 [CommentSection]