From: Bradley Felton (zim@pobox.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 2000 - 20:06:20 MDT
At 12:47 PM 9/26/2000 -0700, Corwyn J. Alambar wrote:
>As a first point, many of the libertarian principles that I have seen seem to
>be a slightly repackaged form of some of the more practical theories of
>anarchism. In this case, it almsot seems libertarianism is an example of
both
>predictive anarchism and possibly a series of templates for the construction
>of social temporary autonomous zones (and here is where I fail in
attribution;
>this idea is NOT mine).
Libertarianism taken to its logical extreme does indeed lead to anarchy, or
"anarcho-capitalism" to be exact. Some of your further comments suggest
that you don't appreciate that there is a whole spectrum of political
thought among anarchists:
>But as such, I see the problems that associate with
>anarchism raising their heads: The difficulty of organizing projects that
>require more than one or two indiviuals and/or more than the standard
>lifetime of the project organizer
This would seem to be aimed at leftist anarchists, who imagine a world
where there are no corporations or employers, just communes and
worker-owned collectives. Anarcho-capitalists, OTOH, don't think that
things will work out like that when people are free: instead they suspect
that people will continue to pool their resources and form corporations,
with many people preferring to be employees rather than having to start
their own business or live on a stinking communal farm.
>...the issues raised under the heading "The
>Tragedy ofthe Commons" (including and especially environmental effects),
Again, anarcho-socialists are the ones who want everything to be held in
common, as they don't believe in the institution of private property.
Anarcho-capitalists are big believers in private property, indeed they
would privatize damn near everything. No commons, no tragedy....
>and the strong potential for pockets of tyranny and other social systems to
>rise and slowly absorb and perhaps subjugate those neighboring., either
>cognitively or grographically.
This is a problem that any system has to face--so the question really is:
would an anarcho-capitalist country be exceptionally easy to invade or
pervert? With the wealth that such a social system would allow to be
generated, it could defend itself with the best mercenaries and weaponry
that money could buy (Mike Lorrey's protection agency might not allow their
subscribers to keep and bear nukes, but mine would), and in facing an
invader, they would be fighting not just for their freedom, but for their
wealth! (talk about a motivating factor). I admit that this is a very
subjective answer, but it's a hard thing to quantify....
At 01:40 PM 9/26/2000 -0700, Corwyn J. Alambar wrote:
>My problems are really three-fold here as to specifics. #1: I'v ebrought
>up the environmental issue before. Group A may wish to simply be left
alone,
>but they're deforesting a hillside above Group B's settlement, causing the
>water to be fouled and increasing the damage of floods in the springtime. To
>fix the flood problem, Group B builds a dam to moderate flooding - but now
>Group C isn't getting enough water. How do you resolve this in a libertarian
>fashion, if negotiation fails?
[Run-of-the-mill libertarians often speak of the justice system as one of
the few things worth keeping a government around for, so I assume that you
are looking for the radical anarcho-capitalist view here:]
The contracts that your three groups have with their insurance/protection
agencies would probably stipulate that in the event of a conflict with a
different agency, the issue would be settled by binding arbitration. A
mutually acceptable arbitrator is selected, and issues a ruling specifying
what each group owes the others (pretty much like the present system, but
you don't have to wait two years to get a ruling). Monetary settlements
would probably be handled by the insurance companies. For the sake of
argument, let's say it was ruled that Group B had no right to stop the
water flowing to Group C, and both a retroactive and ongoing fine was
levied. Group B's insurance company pays the retroactive fine, but tells
Group B that they must remove their dam or look for another provider. They
balk, lose their insurance and protection, and eventually Group C's
protection agency shows up in force to remove the dam and seize the assets
of Group B to pay for the fines, enforcement costs, etc.
Yes, even in an anarcho-capitalist utopia, things can come down to
force--however the financial incentives are against it, unlike out present
system where government cops can commit murder and get a raise.
>#2: Not everyone will play by the "non-coercive" rule. Simply look at how
>powerful a memetic structure religion is. I would love to be left alone -
but
>a group of people reading one of a handful of passages from Leviticus
suddenly
>gets this idea that I am less deserving to live than they are. One of the
>tradeoffs in modern western political systems is that this sort of
activity is
>mostly curtailed.
This seems to be another case of your assuming all anarchists are alike.
While there are some anarchists who claim to want chaos,
anarcho-capitalists want law and order--we just want it privatized and
de-monopolized. If that group of fanatics lynched you for your sinful
ways, they would face similar consequences under anarcho-capitalism as
under US law. The advantage of an anarcho-capitalist system is that those
fanatics wouldn't be able to run to the polls, out-vote your group by 1,
and make your life-style illegal.
>#3: Markets are wonderful, btu I doubt withotu a regulatory regime that they
>would be as resistant to fraud and manipulation as they are now.
Market-based
>systems work, but I don't know if I could trust a mechanism that operates
>on the honor system to play such a vital role in my life
The market is wonderful--no sooner do you express a thought like the above
then people start to look at it as an indication of a new market niche:
private certification agencies to keep an eye on the markets for nervous
customers like yourself. No honor system involved--they earn your money or
you take your business to their competition....
-- Bradley Felton PGP encrypted mail prefered
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:15 MST