Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Top 50 Atheism Quotes
Topic Started: May 30 2009, 09:46 PM (1,030 Views)
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Would all this be taking place at the national or local level or both?

How would private courts guarantee justice?

Would their allegiance be to the laws of the land or the people paying them?

The same obtains for private law enforcement. What is the incentive for those paying being paid by Group A to arrest members of Group A for minor (and how we define minor might be an interesting problem) infractions? How about people in Group B? Wouldn't their arrest be viewed more as a means of enhancing the revenue stream by showing results than an act of justice? What guarantees can be put in place to prevent these false arrests?
Quote:
 
The old West was run by towns hiring their own enforcement. And nowadays the military farms security out to private companies.

But justice was still meted out by the governmental court system and, in the end, backed up by the US Army with forts across the west.

And not sure I'd want Blackwater providing my security!

When I asked for a working example, I'd hoped that the system was up and running and not just political theorizing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

First off, all these questions and comments apply equally to the government we have, except the final. Takes place from local to national now, anarcho-capitalism would eliminate the national. Are our courts just now? Do they not serve special interests, in large part the government itself? Under anarcho-capitalism, courts would institutions of arbitration, parties would hire arbiters and agree to abide by contract. Again, what part of our current government abides by the law, the Constitution, and what part by whoever has the money to lobby representatives? Such a system is only possible with large, centralized, national governments. On a local level, under anarcho-capitalism, law enforcement companies would be hired by multiple people cutting across many boundaries, cultural, social, etc. Companies would be contracted with because they did the job people paid for. Because it would cost less for law enforcement by arbitration, that would be more likely than coercion. Currently the incentive is to enforce government and coerce its survival, it's not to serve the people. Under anarcho-capitalism law enforcement companies would be answerable not to higher up government officials, but to the people who hired and contracted with them. There incentive would be profit, which means satisfying consumers. False arrests would be penalized, monetarily, in arbitration, and cut into profits, as well as the likelihood of being hired again.

"But justice was still meted out by the governmental court system and, in the end, backed up by the US Army with forts across the west."

Only after government moved in.

Early colonists also ran their own "government".

Not if Blackwater was the only law enforcement entity.

Insurance would be an important component of such a system. Individuals, small groups, companies, etc would pay insurance on their property and activities and business. Thus insurance companies, in order to decrease losses, and maximize profits, would hire their own law enforcement companies and contract with arbiters to settle cases. You would never have one party vs another, but multiple interests demanding justice.

International trade would be a working example. There is no international government. Agreements are made between nations and arbitrated.

I've never had to argue this out before, so I'm probably not very good at it, so I appreciate the opportunity.

And I admit as a practical consideration, it's not very. Would I advocate replacing what we have now in the US, probably not. Perhaps in third world countries it could be tried. (I forget the source of this opinion, a CATO podcast.)

But the purpose of advocating anarchy is not just to create such a system (which is contradictory, since it would have to evolve), but to raise questions about and expose aspects of government that are not just, but merely coercive and controlled by monied special interests. (This line of thought from Crispin Sartwell's Against the State: An Introduction to Anarchist Political Theory.)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Heading out to the High Museum's new exhibit of Monet's water lilies so this is a very quick response.

I am very leery of anything new that admits up front that many of the arguments against the new are pleadings that:
Quote:
 
First off, all these questions and comments apply equally to the government we have, except the final.

And, as I see it, the only way to institute your system is by tossing out the Constitution - not a step to be taken lightly.

The wife's waiting....

Edited by ngc1514, May 31 2009, 11:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Enjoy.

True, because such a system cannot be instituted, that would take government. It would be like forcing liberty on people. It has to be chosen, and evolve spontaneously over time.

The pleadings do apply to the system we have now. The current system is not an answer to such questions, it in fact raises them. All I can do is try and answer the questions in terms of how anarchy, anarcho-capitalism, would resolve such issues.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
While capitalism has been a good system that, overall, enriches many of us (many is not all), it also is a system that when left unregulated tends to concentrate wealth into the hands of the capitalists and not the workers.

Yes, this is a highly generalized view of a complex economic system, but our current economic problems tend to show that the rich do get richer and the poor have babies. All those 3 letter federal agencies like the FCC, SEC, FDA and the EPA were not put in place because corporations behaved well in our society, but because they behaved so badly government was forced to step in and regulate industries.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

While we may argue the degree to which our federal government is subservient to the people (I do think the last election has taught that valuable lesson to a whole buncha Republicans!), we do, as the last resort, have the ability to throw the bums out.

We do NOT have the ability to toss out the CEOs of the corporations who were raping the American public with the subprime loans and all the rest of the financial dealings that have gotten us to where we are today.

How long before your anarcho-capitalist system becomes an oligarchy of the rich and how do you propose to keep that from happening?

From whence comes the power and protection - that today we have in the ballot - to the "little people?"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

"While capitalism has been a good system that, overall, enriches many of us (many is not all), it also is a system that when left unregulated tends to concentrate wealth into the hands of the capitalists and not the workers."

Yes, it needs regulation, mainly in the form of honoring contracts and rotecting property and rights.

It would be more precise to say it concentrates more wealth in a few but that the many gain as well.

I will not argue it is perfect, but it is better than any other system.

"...not put in place because corporations behaved well in our society, but because they behaved so badly government was forced to step in and regulate industries."

I think a closer inspection of the history of such corporations will show them more often in collusion with government. But, again, I will not argue capitalism perfect, how can it be when it is based on individual choice, some are good, some are evil, but that is true as well of government, of any system.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

That is the problem of government and government alone. Government is the concentration of power in the hands of a few who have no one to regulate them but themselves. Anarcho-capitalism would rest ultimately on individuals, no one of who could have enough power.

"...we do, as the last resort, have the ability to throw the bums out."

Explain the difference between Bush and Obama. Third party alternatives are governed out of elections.

"We do NOT have the ability to toss out the CEOs of the corporations who were raping the American public with the subprime loans and all the rest of the financial dealings that have gotten us to where we are today."

Sure we do. Stop purchasing their goods and services, let them go bankrupt. While there are greedy capitalists, it was government that created the institutions and incentives for all the risky loans.

"How long before your anarcho-capitalist system becomes an oligarchy of the rich and how do you propose to keep that from happening?"

How would that happen in a system where the motive is profit driven by providing goods and services people desire? Ultimately it would be the consumers who gained power.

Why hasn't this happened in International trade? Why not in the black market? Was it rich pirates who ruled the waves?

"From whence comes the power and protection - that today we have in the ballot - to the "little people?""

I think it was Thomas Sowell who said "Capitalism could be called consumerism."
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Too much else going on right now to answer...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

It's OK. I appreciate the challenges. Like I said, I've never had to defend the position, and even a brief chance helps to strengthen my argument--or convince me it's not correct.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Sure we do. Stop purchasing their goods and services, let them go bankrupt. While there are greedy capitalists, it was government that created the institutions and incentives for all the risky loans.

How does this work in the face of a vertical and horizontal monopoly? Conagra already controls much of the American food production. If, through acquisitions, they control ALL the food production, how does one stop purchasing their goods and services?

What forces at play in your anarcho-capitalist society prevents monopolies from forming and do you see monopolies as a good or bad thing for the working class consumer?

It's gonna get busy around here! The mailman dropped off the three volume set by Richard Evans: The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich in Power and the newly published conclusion, The Third Reich at War. About 2600 pages of pure reading pleasure.

Now all I need is Rick Atkinson to finish the last volume of his three volume Liberation Trilogy and my summer reading would be assured! Alas, no idea when the last volume is to be published...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Look at GM. Too big to fail. Most organizations that get that big tend to collapse under their own weight.

Monopolies have historically been the result of the collusion of business and government.

Let's say M$ is a monopoly. I don't think so, it's sort of like Standard Oil, it's just out-competed others in the market place. But there is still Apple and Linux and IBM and Sun. And here's the thing, the market is changing, it's becoming Internet-based, I don't know if Google will be the next, but M$ is playing catch up with it's new Bling. Eventually the market (environment) will change to the point M$ will not be fit to survive. A new spontaneous order will emerge, following Hayek, the result of creative-destruction, following Schumpeter.


Just got one new book, The Enlightenment in America by Henry F. May, a history of the founding expounding how the Enlightment was just as much, if not more of an influence, on our founding and early development as Protestantism.

ANother in the mail, Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back into Economics.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis