From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 09:58:13 MST
"Alexander Sheppard" <alexandersheppard@hotmail.com>
> I don't understand what you mean "become a capitalist".
I don't understand why you refuse to give your posts a title.
>If "becoming a capitalist" was a decision that didn't affect
>other people, then I would entirely agree with you--but it is.
Becoming a socialist affects other people too but I don't have the slightest
objection if you want to head in that direction, just allow me to go my way
too.
> You can't have socialism in a capitalist society
Nonsense, just find some people that agree with you and pool your resources.
It happens all the time but except for some religious organizations they
usually don't last long because socialism doesn't work. People only stick
with socialism if they are forced to and in a capitalist society they are
not.
>and you can't have capitalism in a socialist society.
Well you're right about that, but why the asymmetry? I think I know, I think
you do to.
>this is like saying that a society which doesn't allow chattel
>slavery is intolerant because it doesn't allow people
>who aren't slaves to become slaves if they want to
Yes, it is like saying that. I doubt you would find many wanting to go into
that line of work but if I'm wrong about that and you have a burning desire
to become a slave who am I to stand in your way. And let me be the first to
wish you good luck in your new career move.
> Private protection agencies? Look, I mean, if your private protection
> agency is defending the control of someone who has mass wealth
> against a great mass of poor and impoverished people [...] the most
> logical way to increase that profit is not to obey the rules of the
> market at all--it's to get your "private protection agency" riled up
> enough that they just kill people who don't work hard enough for you.
This subject has come up before on this list. From an old post of mine.
Good laws are no different than anything else, if you want to maximize
something then make it a commodity and sell it on the free market. Nobody
does that for law very much, that's why there are far more good cars than
good laws. Privately Produced Law (PPL) in a world without government
would have Private Protection Agencies (PPA's) to back them up.
Disputes among PPA's would be settled by an independent arbitrator
agreed to by both parties BEFORE the disagreement happened.
Something like that can exist today. When companies sign complicated
contracts they sometimes also agree on who will arbitrate it if differences
in interpretation happen. Nobody wants to get caught up in the slow,
expensive court system run by governments. The arbitrator is paid by the
case, and because he is picked by both sides, it's in his interest to be as
just as possible. If he favored one side over another or made brutal or
stupid decisions he would not be picked again and would need to look
for a new line of work. Unlike present day judges and juries, justice
would have a positive survival value for the arbitrator.
All parties would have a reason to avoid violence if possible. The disputing
parties would not want to turn their front yard into a war zone, and
violence is expensive. The successful protection agencies would be
more interested in making money than saving face. Most of the time this
would work so I expect the total level of violence to be less than in the
nation state system we have now, but I'm not such a utopian as to suggest
it will drop to zero. Even when force is not used the implicit threat is
always there, another good reason to be civilized.
Please note that I'm not talking about justice only for the rich. If a rich
man's PPA makes unreasonable demands (beatings, sidewalk justice,
I insist on my mother being the judge if I get into trouble) it's going to
need one hell of a lot of firepower to back it up. That kind of an army
is expensive because of the hardware needed and because of the very
high wages it will need to pay its employees for an extremely dangerous
job. To pay for all this they will need to charge their clients enormous
fees severely limiting their customer base and that means even higher
charges. They could never get the upper hand, because the common
man's PPA would be able to outspend a PPA that had outrageous
demands and was just for the super rich. A yacht cost a lot more than
a car, yet the Ford motor Company is far richer than all the yacht
builders on the planet combined.
No system can guarantee justice to everybody all the time but you'd have the
greatest chance of finding it in Anarcho-capitalism. In a dictatorship one
man's whim can lead to hell on earth, I don't see how 40 million Germans
could have murdered 6 million Jews in a Anarcho-capitalistic world. Things
aren't much better in a Democracy, 51% can decide to kill the other 49% ,
nothing even close to that is possible in Anarchy, even theoretically.
In general, the desire not to be killed is much stronger than the desire to
kill a stranger, even a Jewish stranger. Jews would be willing to pay as
much as necessary, up to and including their entire net worth not to be
killed. I doubt if even the most rabid anti Semite would go much beyond 2%.
As a result the PPA protecting Jews would be much stronger than the one that
wants to kill them. In Anarchy, for things that are REALLY important to you
(like not getting killed) you have much more influence than just one man one
vote.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:03 MST