Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Moral Anarchy
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Moral Anarchy (Read 3263 times)
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4255
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #10 - Feb 27th, 2013 at 4:47am
Print Post  
So your problem with anarchy is that if we don't have socialized security, we're going to erupt in chaos. Well, my fear is that if we don't have socialized healthcare or food, we will all die of starvation/illness.
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1506
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #11 - Feb 27th, 2013 at 7:19am
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 4:47am:
So your problem with anarchy is that if we don't have socialized security, we're going to erupt in chaos. Well, my fear is that if we don't have socialized healthcare or food, we will all die of starvation/illness.


I think you meant to say if we do have socialized health care and food production, as they did in the Soviet "Workers Paradise" Union until there was literally no more bread in the stores, and little of anything else, and Gorby finally threw in the towel.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zophos
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1307
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: May 14th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #12 - Feb 27th, 2013 at 4:17pm
Print Post  
I enjoyed reading about Luna's society and did think it was realistic and stable - given its incredibly contrived circumstances. I imagine that even current day prisons have a natural anarchistic order to them with the authority of the guards layered over top. Add to that Luna's generations of isolation and self-reliance, anarchism seems only natural in that environment (really, like any frontier environment). The success of Luna's revolution was also entirely dependent on its unique position to "pressure" the Earthlings. The book of course is not supposed to be an anarchy how-to, and I don't think Heinlein intended it to be, so I can't fault him for not describing a more plausible scenario for achieving anarchy. Still, it's for that reason that I see the book as more of a suspenseful story interspersed with commentary on contemporary political thought.

I only hold up well-managed statism (which is quite possible - a constitutional republic) over anarchy because I believe, despite the stability of anarchy, that a constitutional republic will regardless see less violence overall. Don't mistaken my comparison for a condemnation of anarchism, or a claim that it doesn't work whatsoever - I just think humanity hasn't evolved to the point where we can live as peacefully comparatively speaking without a government.
  

Bread and Circuses
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2060
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #13 - Feb 27th, 2013 at 4:58pm
Print Post  
zophos wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 4:17pm:
I enjoyed reading about Luna's society and did think it was realistic and stable - given its incredibly contrived circumstances. I imagine that even current day prisons have a natural anarchistic order to them with the authority of the guards layered over top. Add to that Luna's generations of isolation and self-reliance, anarchism seems only natural in that environment (really, like any frontier environment). The success of Luna's revolution was also entirely dependent on its unique position to "pressure" the Earthlings. The book of course is not supposed to be an anarchy how-to, and I don't think Heinlein intended it to be, so I can't fault him for not describing a more plausible scenario for achieving anarchy. Still, it's for that reason that I see the book as more of a suspenseful story interspersed with commentary on contemporary political thought.

I only hold up well-managed statism (which is quite possible - a constitutional republic) over anarchy because I believe, despite the stability of anarchy, that a constitutional republic will regardless see less violence overall. Don't mistaken my comparison for a condemnation of anarchism, or a claim that it doesn't work whatsoever - I just think humanity hasn't evolved to the point where we can live as peacefully comparatively speaking without a government.


Heinlein did get better over time. Not just TMIAHM. But yes, it's such a great starting point, because he does a fantastic job of putting certain concepts in perspective between respective private parties. Perfect as an explanation? No. Perfect as a reader's starting point? Right now, it's as good as any.

However, for your second point. I want to pitch a thought to you. Whenever there are problems, you need solutions(it's a theoretical 1:1 ratio of person to problem, regardless of who solves the problem, private or public). Just like the concepts behind the market between public and private good. So here is my question for anyone and everyone to think over(if you haven't already.)
Why do we insist that a well-run state can out perform a free market in ANYTHING of far less limitation? If you socialize one industry, you still need the same experts, so it really doesn't matter if they work privately or for public service. The only thing that changes, is who pays the bill, and whether or not an obsolete faction gets a guaranteed payment(and protection from competition.)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zophos
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1307
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: May 14th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #14 - Feb 27th, 2013 at 6:38pm
Print Post  
Crystallas wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 4:58pm:
Why do we insist that a well-run state can out perform a free market in ANYTHING of far less limitation?

If I understand the question, you're saying that it's inconsistent for me to say socialized (for example) health care is inferior to private healthcare while socialized security is superior to private security? I don't think it's unreasonable of me to see the market for security and justice as fundamentally different than the markets for food, healthcare, etc. It deals in violence, and I see the least violent situation being one in which violence doesn't have to compete with more violence (i.e. there is a monopoly on violence).

Quote:
If you socialize one industry, you still need the same experts, so it really doesn't matter if they work privately or for public service. The only thing that changes, is who pays the bill, and whether or not an obsolete faction gets a guaranteed payment(and protection from competition.)

I have two responses to this. First - yes, our public law enforcement and defense capabilities could exist privately, staffed by all the same people. But the two situations aren't congruent, due to the special nature of the security market as mentioned above. Instead of working in concert to impose social order, security experts might work for rival gangs. I see excessive violence in that scenario. Second - who pays the bill? A private security firm could very well coerce people to pay them for protection (there is much precedent for this - the stereotypical Mafia shakedown). At some point, private security companies which have territorial exclusivity and which pressure residents to pay them become indistinguishable from a state anyway.
  

Bread and Circuses
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2060
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #15 - Feb 27th, 2013 at 7:16pm
Print Post  
zophos wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 6:38pm:
If I understand the question, you're saying that it's inconsistent for me to say socialized (for example) health care is inferior to private healthcare while socialized security is superior to private security? I don't think it's unreasonable of me to see the market for security and justice as fundamentally different than the markets for food, healthcare, etc. It deals in violence, and I see the least violent situation being one in which violence doesn't have to compete with more violence (i.e. there is a monopoly on violence).

I have two responses to this. First - yes, our public law enforcement and defense capabilities could exist privately, staffed by all the same people. But the two situations aren't congruent, due to the special nature of the security market as mentioned above. Instead of working in concert to impose social order, security experts might work for rival gangs. I see excessive violence in that scenario. Second - who pays the bill? A private security firm could very well coerce people to pay them for protection (there is much precedent for this - the stereotypical Mafia shakedown). At some point, private security companies which have territorial exclusivity and which pressure residents to pay them become indistinguishable from a state anyway.


Let me clarify.

Hi, we're your nations two security diplomats. It's determined to be two, because that is what fills the actual needs and it is all the people can afford(representing perfect theoretical efficiency, using something like a modified Coase/Utility calculation.)





You have two. They can either be private or public. The same people would be in charge, regardless. Both exerted the same energy to move up and get promoted to the top. They played the respective games, ect.

If power corrupts, then if either of these two were bad apples, then how would we provide competition? The corrupt member makes their own rules over time, so they have special protections and can easily slide in a replacement if the public trust is destroyed. But wait, if public trust no longer relies on their job security, and either one is subject to competition, then even if/when this problem occurs, the market signals for a correction. The issue here is, what is the best way to determine which expert fills the position? And how do we determine that we actually need the position to be filled?

At no point does anarchy provide the perfect structure. It provides the most choices to correct existing problems. The problem of corruption, gangs, ect. These are existing problems. They do not change based on the actions of the state(although they do come out considerably when power is absolute in ANY area). They never have improved because of the direct causation from the state's actions, they never will. The activists who see the gang members as a negative net externalities take the risk to correct the alleged problem, using methods that also are selected from the widest of choices. The presumption that people make bad choices when left with a max selection is a fallacy, but when left with little choice, the solutions veer to extremes(since you already are breaking the law). But with all choices, people more often than not, make the best possible choice, given the circumstances that are calculated(and funny, even the circumstances that are impossible to calculate due to undefinability/incompleteness. )
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zophos
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1307
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: May 14th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #16 - Feb 28th, 2013 at 12:05am
Print Post  
But part of a well managed state is that there are institutions which check its power. Without descending into jingoistic American exceptionalism, I do believe the US has an incredible system of checks and balances in theory (though no doubt that in practice it frequently falls short). State governments compete with the Feds, the Executive competes with the Congress and Legislatures, watched by an independent judiciary, all subject to the approval of voters and a free (albeit frequently moronic) media. Who knows if this system is as effective as a private competitive model - but it does produce results. The way I see it, if you're going to be ruled by thieves, might as well make it many thieves, so that while they squabble amongst themselves, you can enjoy a substantial degree of liberty for yourself. Certainly not perfect, but that's why I'm here with all of you - a watchman and a dissenter, opposing the wars, the attacks on personal liberties, the taxation, and so on. And the very fact that I can criticize my ruler-thieves and vote to throw them out of office is a powerful extenuation of the American statist model.
  

Bread and Circuses
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bourgeois
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Counterrevolutionary
, Principle Foe of Dennis

Posts: 4105
Location: Montana
Joined: Apr 9th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #17 - Feb 28th, 2013 at 10:18pm
Print Post  
Zophos--I have a simple hypothetical to you. It will involve the creation of a state. I'm not trying to lead you to an answer but honestly want to hear an explanation of whatever you choose.

You and 99 others are teleported to a desert island. The 100 people are fairly representative of human nature--some good, some bad, some in between. And, of course, all partake in the division of labour and specialization. Naturally, things start from a relatively blank slate; but both production and its antithesis, crime, start transpiring. Now, let's say you are seen as a wise philosopher and people respect you to make a big decision for the group. Bob and Joe approach you with different proposals.

Bob: "We need security on this island. Choose me and my men. We will compel everyone to pay for our provision of security, regardless of consent; but Joe cannot, as such, hold our position, and must be prohibited from providing security. He cannot justly compete with us."*

Joe: "Security is a situational good, which some individuals will demand in various circumstances. If you and others desire my services, you may choose to pay me and my group of your own free will. I will neither compel people to pay for my companies' positive externalities, nor will they receive certain security services, if I do not receive recompense in some fashion. And this seems just. Bob or anyone else may compete if he does so on similar terms."**

*Legally this approach will involve a "judicial branch" which Bob has appointed; his "laws" will be created by a bunch of people who are paid and elected by taxpayers and special interests (coconut lobby lol).

**Joe concedes that he is subject to the same legal liability as anyone else in a court of law, run by a neutral third party.


So my questions: who would you pick? why? which approach seems more honest? more efficient? which approach would provide more orderly security? which approach actually has the better "checks and balances"? does Bob have a legal right to restrict Joe? will it result in order or disorder if Joe is subject to competition? which approach can better correct problems and wrongdoings?
  

"The government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer's teet until they have sore, chapped nipples."

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zophos
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1307
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: May 14th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #18 - Feb 28th, 2013 at 10:49pm
Print Post  
Joe's suggestion is superior, but, not unlike Heinlein's plots, the situation is incredibly contrived (though obviously I understand it's a thought experiment and need not be realistic).

In this thought experiment I can call myself an anarchist, but as an American living in 2013, I can't call myself an anarchist.  I cannot stomach the idea of no state security to protect me from potentially 310 million criminals, or the billions more beyond our borders.  I would love it if we could put ourselves on this path - though I suspect it would take hundreds of years to prepare our fellow citizens for anarchy.  Fortunately, the current platform of the Libertarian Party, which is minarchist, is a suitable stepping stone in that direction.  Let anarchy happen under the right circumstances and amongst individuals who are ready for it - like Luna, or the coconut desert island - but the USA does not belong in that list yet.
  

Bread and Circuses
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2060
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #19 - Feb 28th, 2013 at 11:43pm
Print Post  
Can you stomach the idea of a free structure that does a better job of correcting the "criminal" actions, and disincentivising both organized crime and microcriminality?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Moral Anarchy
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy