An article worth reading

[Noleaders]

Well the most relevant one is market anarchism is constitutionalism which is a refutation of the reasons locke supported government.

[|Y|]

Dude, you just proved my point. What a ridiculous link to give me.

I love this.

Hence, Friedman concludes, the provision of “governmental” services should be transferred from the political plebiscite to the economic

Sounds awesome.

"There are self-styled "anarcho-capitalists" (not to be confused with anarchists of any persuasion), who want the state abolished as a regulator of capitalism, and government handed over to capitalists." - Donald Rooum

It seems that Rodderick T Long has a problem understanding that minarchism is not the same thing as anarchism, and he seems to use them interchangably.

Long ends with:

There is simply no way to have a government unless it claims some sort of monopoly for itself. Either the activity it monopolises is an inherently permissible activity or it is not. If it is permissible, then in forbidding competitors in this activity the government is behaving as an aggressor. And if it is impermissible, then the government shouldn’t be engaging in it. The licensing-agency version of minarchy is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

Anarchists are against all forms of coercive authority, rulers. They are not "just" against "government," but all forms of unnatural authority that wants to control you. Especially, and unequivically, that of systems of law.

[Noleaders]

Hence, Friedman concludes, the provision of “governmental” services should be transferred from the political plebiscite to the economic

Sounds awesome.

Just like proudhon then. "Dissolving the state in the economic organism" was a chapter in general theory of a revolution.

"There are self-styled "anarcho-capitalists" (not to be confused with anarchists of any persuasion), who want the state abolished as a regulator of capitalism, and government handed over to capitalists." - Donald Rooum

I know there are, but surely not roderick long

Anarchists are against all forms of coercive authority, rulers. They are not "just" against "government," but all forms of unnatural authority that wants to control you. Especially, and unequivically, that of systems of law.

Read the quote again, its basically what long is arguing but in the opposite order. He' saying that since no one has a right to control you the government doesnt either, he is arguing against minarchists here.


Read the quote again

[|Y|]

Just like proudhon then. "Dissolving the state in the economic organism" was a chapter in general theory of a revolution.

I'm not a "Proudhonist" thus this statement seems to come from nowhere relevent.

I know there are, but surely not roderick long

I think that the similarities are far closer than the differences.

Read the quote again, its basically what long is arguing but in the opposite order. He' saying that since no one has a right to control you the government doesnt either, he is arguing against minarchists here.

Earlier on he justifies these security agencies, actually (pp 147). He just doesn't think that they can become "One Big Agency" without it reducing to minarchism. There is, of course, no argument as to why these agencies won't reduce to minarchism, other than "costs would be higher," which is ridiculous (corporations show that costs go down as capital aggregation goes up, not the other way around).

[Noleaders]

I'm not a "Proudhonist" thus this statement seems to come from nowhere relevent.

Just pointing out that transferring things from authoritarian to economic means isnt a sign of capitalism

I think that the similarities are far closer than the differences.

Well he rejects the word capitalism for one thing, he supports workers and has argued that firms would be "smaller, flatter and more crowded". Even if he was to be considered a kapitalist its still a bit of a leap to call him vulger, in fact in terms of philosophy he's pretty sophisticated.

Earlier on he justifies these security agencies, actually (pp 147). He just doesn't think that they can become "One Big Agency" without it reducing to minarchism. There is, of course, no argument as to why these agencies won't reduce to minarchism, other than "costs would be higher," which is ridiculous (corporations show that costs go down as capital aggregation goes up, not the other way around).

Essentially he is saying that defence is a useful service, which it is, so should be provided voluntarily and suggesting one way it could work, i think he'd agree that anyway would be fine if inline with his principles. Though i dont support it in and of itself there are many arguments as to why it wouldn't reduce to one big agency but you have to view it in the framework of "smaller, flatter and more crowded" for it to make sense. Please dont use corporate capitalism as an argument against free markets. To counter your argument about capital aggregation, security is a labour intensive industry not a capital intensive one.

[Francois Tremblay]

If you are an anarchist then you are by definition a "Proudhonist," in the same way that all evolutionists are "Darwinists."

[Noleaders]

regardless, i think this thread has gone off topic a bit.

[|Y|]

If you are an anarchist then you are by definition a "Proudhonist," in the same way that all evolutionists are "Darwinists."

As weak as that statement is, of course. Modern evolutionists do not agree with all of Darwin's theory, neither do modern anarchists agree with all of Proudhon's theory.

Essentially you make a non-statement of irrelevancy.

[|Y|]

Just pointing out that transferring things from authoritarian to economic means isnt a sign of capitalism

But from my point of view it remains authoritarian. Just less so for the kind mutualists we have here.

Well he rejects the word capitalism for one thing, he supports workers and has argued that firms would be "smaller, flatter and more crowded". Even if he was to be considered a kapitalist its still a bit of a leap to call him vulger, in fact in terms of philosophy he's pretty sophisticated.

I'm only making a statement about authoritarian defense forces which I do not identify with anarchism.

Essentially he is saying that defence is a useful service, which it is, so should be provided voluntarily and suggesting one way it could work, i think he'd agree that anyway would be fine if inline with his principles. Though i dont support it in and of itself there are many arguments as to why it wouldn't reduce to one big agency but you have to view it in the framework of "smaller, flatter and more crowded" for it to make sense. Please dont use corporate capitalism as an argument against free markets. To counter your argument about capital aggregation, security is a labour intensive industry not a capital intensive one.

Of course it is a useful service, it has existed throughout written human history. Force is a very useful thing if you want to exploit other human beings. If your economic system is predicated on the necessity for these kinds of forces, I refuse to call it anarchist, and I would not want to live in such a society. Hired security is nothing less than a private military, than a private government.

[Noleaders]

But from my point of view it remains authoritarian. Just less so for the kind mutualists we have here.

If its solely for self defence then i respectfully disagree.

I'm only making a statement about authoritarian defense forces which I do not identify with anarchism.

Yeah but thats not what he's supporting, how bout simply self defence forces for protecting against authoritarianism?

Of course it is a useful service, it has existed throughout written human history. Force is a very useful thing if you want to exploit other human beings. If your economic system is predicated on the necessity for these kinds of forces, I refuse to call it anarchist, and I would not want to live in such a society. Hired security is nothing less than a private military, than a private government.

No. Self defence is not against anarchist principles therefore protection remains a useful and legitimate service, especially when contrasted with the outcome of there being no self defence.

[|Y|]

If its solely for self defence then i respectfully disagree.

Self-defense is distinct from self-defenders. That is, people hired to defend you or your assets.

Yeah but thats not what he's supporting, how bout simply self defence forces for protecting against authoritarianism?

I do not need anyone to defend me, thanks. The governments pretend that they defend me but they fail. I would never hire someone to defend me or the things that I have or love. Ever.

No. Self defence is not against anarchist principles therefore protection remains a useful and legitimate service, especially when contrasted with the outcome of there being no self defence.

Self-defense is going to exist regardless. You try coming into my house I will defend it. Having defenders to defend me is not only illogical (because I will have to provide them with enough incentive to not just fuck me up and take what I have), but it is also illegitimate, because it creates externalized forces that exist beyond the individual and exist only in who has the biggest "defense forces."

You say that they can be defensive, but the reality is that they can go any way. This is fact. I do not feel comfortable in a society where these defense forces exist. Period.

[Noleaders]

Self-defense is distinct from self-defenders. That is, people hired to defend you or your assets.

As long as they do nothing authoritarian then i dont see the relevance.

I do not need anyone to defend me, thanks. The governments pretend that they defend me but they fail. I would never hire someone to defend me or the things that I have or love. Ever.

Well you dont have to.

Self-defense is going to exist regardless. You try coming into my house I will defend it. Having defenders to defend me is not only illogical (because I will have to provide them with enough incentive to not just fuck me up and take what I have), but it is also illegitimate, because it creates externalized forces that exist beyond the individual and exist only in who has the biggest "defense forces."

You say that they can be defensive, but the reality is that they can go any way. This is fact. I do not feel comfortable in a society where these defense forces exist. Period.

If its solely for self defence then i respectfully disagree.

Self-defense is distinct from self-defenders. That is, people hired to defend you or your assets.

Yeah but thats not what he's supporting, how bout simply self defence forces for protecting against authoritarianism?

I do not need anyone to defend me, thanks. The governments pretend that they defend me but they fail. I would never hire someone to defend me or the things that I have or love. Ever.

No. Self defence is not against anarchist principles therefore protection remains a useful and legitimate service, especially when contrasted with the outcome of there being no self defence.

Self-defense is going to exist regardless. You try coming into my house I will defend it. Having defenders to defend me is not only illogical (because I will have to provide them with enough incentive to not just fuck me up and take what I have), but it is also illegitimate, because it creates externalized forces that exist beyond the individual and exist only in who has the biggest "defense forces."

You say that they can be defensive, but the reality is that they can go any way. This is fact. I do not feel comfortable in a society where these defense forces exist. Period.

Well everyone defending only themself will mean the strongest establishing a tyrannical regime pretty quickly. If it helps i see these "defence forces" as more in line with that spooner quote i posted a while back than private police.

[|Y|]

As long as they do nothing authoritarian then i dont see the relevance.

I assume that they would be authoritarian and go from there.

Well you dont have to.

But I'd still be at risk of other defense forces if they decide to become authoritarian.

Well everyone defending only themself will mean the strongest establishing a tyrannical regime pretty quickly. If it helps i see these "defence forces" as more in line with that spooner quote i posted a while back than private police.

No, if everyone defends themselves, and in times of need, come together to defend their community, then there is no power aggregation. However, if someone can hire defense forces, there is no limiting factor on how many that they can hire, this allows them to aggregate force. As long as they can maintain an incentive for the police forces, then they can grow and create a private police state.

This is undesirable, and impossible in a society of individuals who only form defense associations in a time of need (such as invasion).

[Noleaders]

I assume that they would be authoritarian and go from there.

Not if they wanted to keep their money

But I'd still be at risk of other defense forces if they decide to become authoritarian.

Like you'd be at risk from other people if they turned authoritarian.

No, if everyone defends themselves, and in times of need, come together to defend their community, then there is no power aggregation. However, if someone can hire defense forces, there is no limiting factor on how many that they can hire, this allows them to aggregate force. As long as they can maintain an incentive for the police forces, then they can grow and create a private police state.

This is undesirable, and impossible in a society of individuals who only form defense associations in a time of need (such as invasion).

What about people too weak to defend themselves? What about if gangs form? Shouldn't peaceful citizens be able to have security if they need it?
The thing is "individuals who only form defense associations in a time of need" is basically what im saying, except there will always be some need.

[|Y|]

Not if they wanted to keep their money

If aggression wasn't beneficial then wars and invasions would not have been a historical fact in the record. As I said on anti-state.com, if a defense force really wanted to profit, it would have its own enforcers hire people to commit crimes, and then go in and get those people, thus proving their worth as a security agency (while at the same time, getting peoples assets and selling them on a black market).

Basically, a mobster state. Even Rothbard concedes it's possible.

Like you'd be at risk from other people if they turned authoritarian.

Yeah, but one guy being an asshole is a whole lot easier to deal with than a whole group.

What about people too weak to defend themselves? What about if gangs form? Shouldn't peaceful citizens be able to have security if they need it?

The thing is "individuals who only form defense associations in a time of need" is basically what im saying, except there will always be some need.

Sure, you can hire your police associations, I am merely showing you how those "police assocations" devolve into the state. You're welcome to create a state if you so chose. I can only try to convince you how it can turn into a state. Rather than object to the reasonable scenario, you change the discussion to something else entirely, such as "what about the weak people?"

There will not always be a need for defense associations, and any society where that is the case is not anarchistic in my mind. I mean, if I were to write the converse about a communist society it could be said that police forces were statist inventions in order to keep the masses subdued. Only of course I would never ever do that, because even from a communist point of view I see no "continual need" for police forces.