What Does Government Do, Exactly?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

What I mean by that is what useful function does it really perform that couldn't be had without it?

Bills are passed that bring about social progress, and then bills are passed that undo them, and bills are passed that undo those, and undo those, ad nauseum.

I need not recite a laundry list of "unjust" laws that are on the books in various countries.

I look and look and I see no reason why to have it over something like anarcho-capitalism. On a global scale. Do you know of any? What do you think on the subject?

[godfry n. glad]

I look and look and I see no reason why to have it over something like anarcho-capitalism. On a global scale. Do you know of any? What do you think on the subject?

I dunno...You got any good stuff I can take?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I dunno...You got any good stuff I can take?

I think you have confused the popular use of the word "anarchy" with what it actually means. It doesn't mean a condition of disorderly chaos, just the lack of a governing state. The concept of personal property exists in anarcho-capitalism, and means for protecting it from theft.

To answer your question though, I do have a few things. I also have means to protect them from theft, even if state-funded or hired law enforcement (as in an anarcho-capitalistic world) didn't come to protect it.

[BDS]

Without a legal concept of "property", you wouldn't have things.

Laws are violent and coercive. That is their nature. If we agree that violence and coercion are bad things, to be avoided if possible, then utopia must be an Anarchy.

However, utopia may not be possible, in which case we may need laws to preserve an imperfect order in society. Most preliterate societies, by the way, have little in the way of laws and government. As was discussed in another thread recently, the development of agriculture (and the irrigation projects and warfare that such development engendered) seems to have led to “civilization”. Large, complex, stratified societies, with a division and specialization of labor, appear to be more difficult to regulate without laws and governments.

It is likely that pre-legal societies were able to regulate behavior because they were relatively small (everyone knew everyone else). Also, there was little stratification of wealth and little specialization of labor. In addition, concepts of property (which Johnny seems to like) were either non-existent or very different from our own.

I’ve often wondered (given the notion that utopia is an anarchy) whether the Christian heaven is an anarchy, or does God “rule”. If there are laws in heaven, how can it be a utopia?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Without a legal concept of "property", you wouldn't have things.

Laws are violent and coercive. That is their nature. If we agree that violence and coercion are bad things, to be avoided if possible, then utopia must be an Anarchy.

However, utopia may not be possible, in which case we may need laws to preserve an imperfect order in society. Most preliterate societies, by the way, have little in the way of laws and government. As was discussed in another thread recently, the development of agriculture (and the irrigation projects and warfare that such development engendered) seems to have led to “civilization”. Large, complex, stratified societies, with a division and specialization of labor, appear to be more difficult to regulate without laws and governments.

It is likely that pre-legal societies were able to regulate behavior because they were relatively small (everyone knew everyone else). Also, there was little stratification of wealth and little specialization of labor. In addition, concepts of property (which Johnny seems to like) were either non-existent or very different from our own.

I’ve often wondered (given the notion that utopia is an anarchy) whether the Christian heaven is an anarchy, or does God “rule”. If there are laws in heaven, how can it be a utopia?

The Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) on the subject covers this pretty well.

[ChuckF]

This is an enormous question, and there is a huge literature to address it. Of course government provides myriad services for the common good, such as infrastructure and a system of laws and law enforcement.

Hobbes contended that men, because "nature has made [them] so equal in the faculties of the body and mind" are in a natural state of competition. Government, therefore, provides a third and more powerful party, to keep them in awe and thereby preserve peace within a society.

Again, men have no pleasure, but on the contrary a great deal of grief, in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looks that his companions should value him at the same rate as he sets upon himself; and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavors, as far as he dares (which among them that have no common power to keep them in quiet is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contempers to damage and from the others by example.

When you say "on a global scale" I'm not sure what you mean. There is, at least according to some, already anarchy on a global scale, as there is no global government, though not necessarily capitalism. Do you mean the dissolution of all governing entities on the planet?

[BDS]

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -Murray Rothbard in Society and State

I admit to being ignorant about anarcho-capitalism, except for skimming your Wiki link. However, the above quote seems ridiculous. “Property” is inevitably the subject of disputes. Without a state to adjudicate the disputes, it seems to me that the winner would often be those with the largest private police force. Property itself is an “invasion of indiviual rights” in the sense that, by its very nature, it impinges on the freedom of individuals. In other words, you can’t sleep in someone else’s house.

What legitimizes “property”? In the case of modern Capitalism, property is legitimized by the state and by the “consent of the governed” (to qote the Declaration). It would, I suppose, be vaguely possible that some sort of commonality of belief would be sufficient to legitimize property in an anarcho-capitalist state. But I doubt it would in a diverse society.

[godfry n. glad]

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -Murray Rothbard in Society and State

I admit to being ignorant about anarcho-capitalism, except for skimming your Wiki link. However, the above quote seems ridiculous. “Property” is inevitably the subject of disputes. Without a state to adjudicate the disputes, it seems to me that the winner would often be those with the largest private police force. Property itself is an “invasion of indiviual rights” in the sense that, by its very nature, it impinges on the freedom of individuals. In other words, you can’t sleep in someone else’s house.

But, is property theft, as is claimed by Proudhon?

What legitimizes “property”? In the case of modern Capitalism, property is legitimized by the state and by the “consent of the governed” (to qote the Declaration). It would, I suppose, be vaguely possible that some sort of commonality of belief would be sufficient to legitimize property in an anarcho-capitalist state. But I doubt it would in a diverse society.

In the case of modern Capitalism, property is legitimized by the state and by the “consent of the governed”.

Yep. No state, no secure property, no capital, no capitalism.

Without a state to adjudicate the disputes, it seems to me that the winner would often be those with the largest private police force.

Well, I don't know about "largest private police force", but I would agree that the most effective means of intimidation, usually force, would seemingly determine who was the winner of disputes.

But is property really theft, as Proudhon claimed?

[ChuckF]

Without a state to adjudicate the disputes, it seems to me that the winner would often be those with the largest private police force.
Or the largest private police force itself.

[godfry n. glad]

I dunno...You got any good stuff I can take?

I think you have confused the popular use of the word "anarchy" with what it actually means. It doesn't mean a condition of disorderly chaos, just the lack of a governing state. The concept of personal property exists in anarcho-capitalism, and means for protecting it from theft.

To answer your question though, I do have a few things. I also have means to protect them from theft, even if state-funded or hired law enforcement (as in an anarcho-capitalistic world) didn't come to protect it.

Yeah? You think so? I suspect that others have better means to take it from you.

[Clutch Munny]

REG: And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES: The aqueduct?
REG: What?
XERXES: The aqueduct.
REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO: And the sanitation.
STAN/LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS: And the roads.
REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO: Irrigation.
XERXES: Medicine.
COMMANDO: Education.
COMMANDOS: Ohh...
REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO:And the wine.
FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO: Public baths.
STAN/LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES: Brought peace.
REG: Oh, peace? Shut up!

[wildernesse]

The government can provide public goods that private market-driven organizations have no/little incentive to provide because of problems with free riders.

It's hard to talk as if there is a possibility of no government. Humans, as complex social creatures, create structure to order their societies--we create norms of behavior for acceptable interactions, etc. "Government" is just an abstraction along those lines.

[Waluigi]

Well, let's see Johnny... for starters, the protocols and fundamental infrastructure of this Internet with which you use to rant was developed using government funds.

The roads you drive on every day were built and are maintained by government.

You feel safe eating meat from your grocery store because of government oversight.

And you can read what I've just typed because the government thought literacy and basic education were important.

Is that enough?

[Clutch Munny]

Well, in Libertopia the market does all those things better. And if it doesn't, it's because those things aren't actually good anyhow.

[TomJoe]

You feel safe eating meat from your grocery store because of government oversight.

The government also is the major funding source of agricultural and medical research.

Patents are a pretty useful thing too.

[Stephen Maturin]

Without a state to adjudicate the disputes, it seems to me that the winner would often be those with the largest private police force.

Indeed. Only the few would be able to afford the services of true capitalist heroes such as the Baldwin Felts "Detective" Agency, which was willing to do anything -- up to and including mass murder* -- for the right price at the behest of its employers.

*Not a problem under market anarchism, I suppose, since no state --> no criminal law --> no such thing as "murder."

[godfry n. glad]

Without a state to adjudicate the disputes, it seems to me that the winner would often be those with the largest private police force.

Indeed. Only the few would be able to afford the services of true capitalist heroes such as the Baldwin Felts "Detective" Agency, which was willing to do anything -- up to and including mass murder* -- for the right price at the behest of its employers.

*Not a problem under market anarchism, I suppose, since no state --> no criminal law --> no such thing as "murder."

Or, anybody from the membership list here (http://ipoaonline.org/php/).

Do you have that kind of money those kinds of resources, Johnny?

[Taqwacore Forum]

All these answers are relevant to countries with social/economic stability and infrastructure, but ask the citizens of Zimbabwe or the Dafur region of Sudan for example, and the answer would probably be...... spread fear and istability, murder, rape, corruption....the list goes on.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Well, let's see Johnny... for starters, the protocols and fundamental infrastructure of this Internet with which you use to rant was developed using government funds.

Correct.

We can also thank the US Military for GPS. Is the US Miliary the only entity who could have created such a system?


The roads you drive on every day were built and are maintained by government.

See above. Also, perhaps the roads are nice where you live, but where I do, they're really not that good in places. Some of the worst government-maintained roads in the nation.

You feel safe eating meat from your grocery store because of government oversight.

That is a good one. I'll have to think of a reply and get back to you.

And you can read what I've just typed because the government thought literacy and basic education were important.

True, but yet again, would it take a government to bring about such a result?
When a nation spends more money on national defense than education, something's very wrong.

Is that enough?

No.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Without a state to adjudicate the disputes, it seems to me that the winner would often be those with the largest private police force.
Or the largest private police force itself.


Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but what keeps multiple smaller police forces from ganging up on a larger aggressor? It would be in their interest to do so, would it not?

[ChuckF]

Without a state to adjudicate the disputes, it seems to me that the winner would often be those with the largest private police force.
Or the largest private police force itself.


Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but what keeps multiple smaller police forces from ganging up on a larger aggressor? It would be in their interest to do so, would it not?
The problems of collective action are many and complex. This is the fundamental flaw; let's imagine a large private police force. It exercises authority at the behest of its clients in settling disputes and providing security. It competes with other private police forces in an anarchic system. It guarantees its clients safety in exchange for payment. It seeks to maximize its own profitability by controlling the maximum resources and manpower possible. It seeks to achieve dominance over other police forces in the market and eliminate its competitors. Why not ally with various industries in order to achieve economic supremacy and better resources? Clients may leave at any time, but they will surely have to purchase security from some other firm.

What is this large private police force beginning to sound like? And its competitors too!

This is a common phenomenon also found in revolutionary movements. Frequently, the organizational behavior of the revolutionary cadres turns into the bureaucratic behavior of the state. In this case, security forces in competition would simply redraw state boundaries and assume the functions of a state. This is what happened in Somalia when the state disintegrated; warlords carved out their fiefdoms and started acting like (limited) states. Security forces are one of the many organizations within anarcho-capitalism that would resume the function of a state. Large employers, industries, etc. could also fill that role.

[godfry n. glad]

Plus, what's to stop a private police force from turning on their client and taking what they want?

[Watser?]

Without a state to adjudicate the disputes, it seems to me that the winner would often be those with the largest private police force.
Or the largest private police force itself.


Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but what keeps multiple smaller police forces from ganging up on a larger aggressor? It would be in their interest to do so, would it not?
The problems of collective action are many and complex. This is the fundamental flaw; let's imagine a large private police force. It exercises authority at the behest of its clients in settling disputes and providing security. It competes with other private police forces in an anarchic system. It guarantees its clients safety in exchange for payment. It seeks to maximize its own profitability by controlling the maximum resources and manpower possible. It seeks to achieve dominance over other police forces in the market and eliminate its competitors. Why not ally with various industries in order to achieve economic supremacy and better resources? Clients may leave at any time, but they will surely have to purchase security from some other firm.

What is this large private police force beginning to sound like? And its competitors too!

This is a common phenomenon also found in revolutionary movements. Frequently, the organizational behavior of the revolutionary cadres turns into the bureaucratic behavior of the state. In this case, security forces in competition would simply redraw state boundaries and assume the functions of a state. This is what happened in Somalia when the state disintegrated; warlords carved out their fiefdoms and started acting like (limited) states. Security forces are one of the many organizations within anarcho-capitalism that would resume the function of a state. Large employers, industries, etc. could also fill that role.

It is also basically what (slowly) happened in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. The state just gets re-invented in another form. Like the feudal lords the security forces would try to consolidate their territory to make it easier to control and be providing some kind of justice system (as the Islamic Courts did in Somalia).
In Spain during the civil war there, the areas under control of the anarchist militia CNT-FAI (which was based on trade unions) were still essentially fiefdoms with their own army and police. In most civil wars you see politically based groups (party militias) trying to control neighborhoods. Sometimes it is the other way around and you get neighborhood militias that morph into political parties.

[Raza]

Without a state to adjudicate the disputes, it seems to me that the winner would often be those with the largest private police force.
Or the largest private police force itself.
Which eventually aquires a local monopoly on force, and we're right back at having a government.


I consider myself an anarchist, but not in the 'no laws' sense. Anarchy is the lack of hierarchy and 'role' labels put on people by which we judge the value of their actions, a lack of divisions. A simple voluntary and egalitarian direct democracy would qualify.

Capitalism does not work with with social (small l) libertarianism and anarchy though. Property is authority by proximity, same thing in a different package. Slavery would be the obvious extreme, but even currently popular things like land ownership (and potentially any ownership of a limited recource, so really any kind of property if taken far enough) come close to being just as inescapable.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Plus, what's to stop a private police force from turning on their client and taking what they want?

What's to stop a country from turning on it's citizens and taking what it wants? Strangely doesn't happen that often, considering they could get away with it.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

The government also is the major funding source of agricultural and medical research.

Yeah, but they dump more money into other things of more dubious utility, like two billion dollar a pop B2 bombers, which rarely even get used. Or ballistic missile subs that have never fired in a war. Now they're kept around even post Cold War I'd guess because of China. So pretty much governments waste mind-blowing levels of money over what another might do. Fantastic.

Patents are a pretty useful thing too.

And copyrights, to a point. They last too fucking long now though.

[Angakuk]

Yeah, but they dump more money into other things of more dubious utility, like two billion dollar a pop B2 bombers, which rarely even get used. Or ballistic missile subs that have never fired in a war.
I agree. It is about time we made more efficient use of those weapons. We need to engage in much larger scale conflicts so we can get our money's worth out of our investments in weapons systems. These nickel & dime military adventures are for the birds. I suggest that we go right ahead and use those subs to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against China (N. Korea and Iran as well). Let's get serious about Globalization.

[Dingfod]

Kinay! World domination begins in 15 seconds.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I agree. It is about time we made more efficient use of those weapons. We need to engage in much larger scale conflicts so we can get our money's worth out of our investments in weapons systems. These nickel & dime military adventures are for the birds. I suggest that we go right ahead and use those subs to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against China (N. Korea and Iran as well). Let's get serious about Globalization.

:giggle:

In seriousness though, try as I might, I don't get why governments don't try to get along better than they do.
I don't subscribe to this, but it almost seems like there's a vested interest in having war, just to be able to sell ridiculously expensive weapons.

If the policy makers actually experienced war as bad as, say, shell shocked Vietnam vets, and had to pay much higher taxes to fund the war machine than the average Joe or Jane, I'd imagine they might be a little bit less gung-ho about getting into it.

[Angakuk]

I don't subscribe to this, but it almost seems like there's a vested interest in having war, just to be able to sell ridiculously expensive weapons.
Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/speeches/eisenhower001.htm)
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
All things considered we have not done a very good job of following this advice, but we have followed it at least as well as we have followed Washington's advice (http://www.csamerican.com/Doc.asp?doc=washfarewell) to avoid permanent foreign alliances.

[ChuckF]

In seriousness though, try as I might, I don't get why governments don't try to get along better than they do.
I don't subscribe to this, but it almost seems like there's a vested interest in having war, just to be able to sell ridiculously expensive weapons.

While the influence of the military-industrial complex can be uncomfortably powerful, the problem of governments not getting along and getting into wars pre-dates big spending. Some scholars attribute nearly all military conflicts to misperception of an adversary's intentions and actions. Enter the security dilemma: any action taken to increase a state's military security may be interpreted by another state as a provocation or an offensive maneuver. There are many reasons why systems as large as complex as governments have a hard time getting along.

[Angakuk]

Could all of this have anything to do with the fact that in many languages the word for stranger/foreigner is that same as the word for enemy?

[ChuckF]

I don't think I've ever heard that one before. That's not true in any of the European languages I know, and these languages' titular states have long hitsories of warfare and conflict, so I doubt it.

[Watser?]

I've been wondering about that one before, it's not true in any one the languages I know either (including Arabic and Turkish).

[Kyuss Apollo]

All things considered we have not done a very good job of following this advice, but we have followed it at least as well as we have followed Washington's advice (http://www.csamerican.com/Doc.asp?doc=washfarewell) to avoid permanent foreign alliances.

True, but many have misinterpreted Washington's advice as advocating isolationism. He actually said

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements.

...Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."

By this, he would have viewed our alliance with Britain and the USSR against the Axis powers as appropriate, but NATO far less so. It is doubtful that Washington or the other founding founding fathers (with the possible exception of Alexander Hamilton) would likewise approve of the increasingly pervasive nature of the federal government over the course of the 20th century.

Chuck, love that avatar btw!:foocl:

[Angakuk]

Two examples, though I am sure that more exist. A good question for our resident cunning linguist, erimir.

Latin - hostis: stranger, enemy, foe.

Southern Paiute - qymmantsi: stranger, enemy (borrowed into Spanish as Comanche).

[ChuckF]

I don't know much Latin, but I thought the equivalent of stranger was extraneus. hostis is only for hostile strangers, and may be used for anyone hostile.

In any case, even if is is the case in some languages, I strongly doubt that the linguistic phenomenon plays a great role in international relations.

[Angakuk]

I doubt that this particular linguistic phenomenon, as such, plays any significant role in international relations. What I am wondering is whether or not the existence of this phenomenon signifies a fundamental quality of human communities. Namely, a tendency to view that which is different, strange, alien, etc. as being inherently wrong and potentially hostile.

It is interesting that the Paiute word qymmantsi is derived from the adjective kymma which translates as 'different' (from me). That which is different from me is strange and therefore, potentially a threat.
Native American Languages (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Native-American-Languages-3390/word-translation.htm)

The Latin word hostis most often means ‘foreign enemy’,but its primary sense is simply ‘stranger’. The same is true of the Greek xenos (xenos), and both hostis and xenos are cognate with the English words host, hospitable, hostile and guest.
What is Classical Latin? (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FYADcv-d19oJ:classics.lss.wisc.edu/courses/Classical_Latin_Supplement.pdf+hostis+latin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us)

So, what do governments do? Perhaps, amongst other things, they help us (i.e. the governed) to identify ourselves by contrast with those who are not us (i.e. the stranger, the enemy).

[ChuckF]

Then indeed it has very little to do with the linguistic content of the word for enemy/strangerat all; you're talking about identity issues (the "constituting other"), which play an enormous role in conflict, warfare, and relations. Lanugage is a single element of identity and one of the cornerstones of nation-building. Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities and Ernst Gellner's Nations and Nationalism cover this topic in much greater depth. The existence of a modern nation-state is generally the result of ingroup identification, in which the group (ethnic, civic, whatever kind of identity) supports a certain leadership. It does go in the other direction, a state-directed nation-building campaign - the 'nationalizing' state (Rogers Brubaker's term) meets with mixed success. However, these nationalizing campaigns are often assimilatory in nature, not trying to create an identity ex nihilo. States with such campaigns (i.e. Belarus 1992-1993) often fail.

[Angakuk]

Chuck,
We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here. You appear to be taking the position that I have somehow suggested that this particular linguistic phenomenon constitutes some sort of causus belli. I am not suggesting that at all. What I am asking is whether it might not be the case that this identification of stranger with enemy (present in some languages, how many I do not know) reflects a certain ethno-centrism that also lies at the root of the propensity of nations to wage war against other nations. In other words, might there be relationship (not necessarily a causal one) between the two facts.

I take it that the propensity of nations to wage war is not being questioned as to fact. You did question whether this linguistic identification exists, as a matter of fact. I responded with two examples. (I realise that two does not equal many, but that I was able to unearth two such examples, from unrelated languages, with very little effort, suggests to me that there are more fish still in that pond.) You challenged my translation of one those terms. I responded with a citation supporting that translation.

So, if it is a fact that nations have a propensity to wage war, and if it is also a fact that some (perhaps many) languages use the same word for stranger and enemy, might these two facts be related? Or, as I stated it in the original offending post:
Could all of this have anything to do with the fact that in many languages the word for stranger/foreigner is the same as the word for enemy?

[ChuckF]

What I am asking is whether it might not be the case that this identification of stranger with enemy (present in some languages, how many I do not know) reflects a certain ethno-centrism that also lies at the root of the propensity of nations to wage war against other nations. In other words, might there be relationship (not necessarily a causal one) between the two facts.
Ok, that clears it up.

Maybe. I don't know. I don't know how common the stranger/enemy equation you mentioned is. I don't know if nations in fact have a propensity to fight wars. I do know that most states have either been born of war or have been involved in at least one war in their history. It is obvious that parties waging war consider the opponent to be 'other.' Perhaps this equation, if it exists, reflects a human tendency towards suspicion of individuals outside of the ingroup. There may be a relationship between this and war; I don't know how one would go about demonstrating it.

You seem to be tending towards an ethnic conception of war, based on your use of 'ethno-centrism.' This I doubt. The equation of ethnicity and state is quite new.

[ChuckF]

:dddp:

[Angakuk]

Just to be clear, I am using 'ethno-centrism' as short-hand for an over-riding concern for one's group and those who are perceived as belonging to it, regardless of what constitutes the requirements for membership in the group.

[ChuckF]

I think I'd call that nationalism. (Nation does not equal state.)

[Watser?]

I think I'd call that tribalism.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

You feel safe eating meat from your grocery store because of government oversight.

Ok, had some time to think this one over, and the answer possibly could be that the company who produces and/or sells the food would want to produce the safest food they could, for the sake of business, if not out of their own concern for humanity (which is not a priority of far too many large corporations).

Since there's no government to certify that their food meets a certain standard, the task would fall to a third party. A corporation who wanted their product graded would have them come by and check everything out, and they'd get approval for meeting the safety standard. Think of something not totally unlike the Better Business Bureau.
Of course it would be possible that an inspector could be bought off or fraud enter some other way, but that happens with government officials too.

Feel free to pick away at the above, if I'm in error, I'd like to know.

[ChuckF]

You feel safe eating meat from your grocery store because of government oversight.

Ok, had some time to think this one over, and the answer possibly could be that the company who produces and/or sells the food would want to produce the safest food they could, for the sake of business, if not out of their own concern for humanity (which is not a priority of far too many large corporations).

Since there's no government to certify that their food meets a certain standard, the task would fall to a third party. A corporation who wanted their product graded would have them come by and check everything out, and they'd get approval for meeting the safety standard. Think of something not totally unlike the Better Business Bureau.
Of course it would be possible that an inspector could be bought off or fraud enter some other way, but that happens with government officials too.

Feel free to pick away at the above, if I'm in error, I'd like to know.
This assumes that every enterprise is looking to build a good reputation and secure a loyal marketshare. That is not necessarily the only or even the ideal way to function within an anarcho-capitalistic system. There are other ways to increase one's own power.

Let's stick with the food safety example. What is to stop an individual or several individuals from, say, buying a lot of spoiled meat, setting up a company, dumping it at cut-rate prices and undercutting the established competition, and then disappearing into the night? Their only goal was to turn a profit, and they could do that. They could turn even more of a profit on their spoiled food because they wouldn't have to contract out food inspection.

Another important function of government that renders trade possible: the establishment and maintenance of a uniform banking and currency system within a proscribed territory. The US dollar is, like most other currencies, a fiat currency, deriving its value from a government directive. What backs a dollar in anarcho-capitalism? There are no mechanisms to regulate credit and exchange across large areas, and nothing to stop anyone from simply establishing their own currency to compete with others. Since currency has no inherent value, this sounds like a bad kind of anarchy.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Let's stick with the food safety example. What is to stop an individual or several individuals from, say, buying a lot of spoiled meat, setting up a company, dumping it at cut-rate prices and undercutting the established competition, and then disappearing into the night? Their only goal was to turn a profit, and they could do that. They could turn even more of a profit on their spoiled food because they wouldn't have to contract out food inspection.

Nothing would stop them, but who in their right mind would buy food from a company that's not been certified safe? If a customer is so stupid that they would rather risk their safety to save some cash--and this probably sounds heartless--but that's their problem, isn't it? Even the methheads are going, "That'd take a pretty fuckin' stupid person."

Another important function of government that renders trade possible: the establishment and maintenance of a uniform banking and currency system within a proscribed territory. The US dollar is, like most other currencies, a fiat currency, deriving its value from a government directive. What backs a dollar in anarcho-capitalism? There are no mechanisms to regulate credit and exchange across large areas, and nothing to stop anyone from simply establishing their own currency to compete with others. Since currency has no inherent value, this sounds like a bad kind of anarchy.

Crazy idea, what's wrong and/or unworkable about having money that has inherent value (as much as anything can be said to). If you have a silver coin, doesn't really matter where you go in the world, most people would take that in exchange for goods. Gold? Even better. Copper's becoming worth more all the time, would make a good, if bulky, currency too.

[ChuckF]

Let's stick with the food safety example. What is to stop an individual or several individuals from, say, buying a lot of spoiled meat, setting up a company, dumping it at cut-rate prices and undercutting the established competition, and then disappearing into the night? Their only goal was to turn a profit, and they could do that. They could turn even more of a profit on their spoiled food because they wouldn't have to contract out food inspection.

Nothing would stop them, but who in their right mind would buy food from a company that's not been certified safe? If a customer is so stupid that they would rather risk their safety to save some cash--and this probably sounds heartless--but that's their problem, isn't it? Even the methheads are going, "That'd take a pretty fuckin' stupid person."
How about, say, poor people? Or stupid people? Or what if these unscrupulous meat-sellers lied and simply forged the certification? I mean, if all the stupid people died from eating spoiled meat, there would be no more anarcho-capitalists :sadcheer:

Crazy idea, what's wrong and/or unworkable about having money that has inherent value (as much as anything can be said to). If you have a silver coin, doesn't really matter where you go in the world, most people would take that in exchange for goods. Gold? Even better. Copper's becoming worth more all the time, would make a good, if bulky, currency too.
I'm not an economist, so I will have to better research the drawbacks of switching back to commodity currency. Off the top of my head, it's hard to transport and store, and shortages could limit credit availability, thereby reducing economic growth potential.

Anyway, this is just a sideshow. As I posted earlier, a state would simply re-emerge from vital anarcho-capitalistic institutions operating within a given locality. Banking, security, other key industries. All governments-in-waiting.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

How about, say, poor people?

I don't think the average poor person has a greater desire to die than anyone else.

Or stupid people?

Would you miss stupid people?

Or what if these unscrupulous meat-sellers lied and simply forged the certification?

It's harder to forge a five dollar bill now than it's worth to do so. Make the certificates extremely hard to forge, maybe involving complex holograms. Or perhaps quantum encrypted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography) communication back and forth with the Certification Board and customers. Everyone has cellphones now, they could be used in such a system.


Off the top of my head, it's hard to transport and store

Metal coins too heavy for ChuckF to carry? I prefer Susan Bs and Sacagawea Dollars myself. Water doesn't ruin them, and they don't get all crinkled up. I've been known to carry a pocket-full of them that weighs half a pound. I think I could handle a few button-sized gold and silver coins. Or were you referring to machines?

and shortages could limit credit availability, thereby reducing economic growth potential.

Heaven forbid there's any of that. :rolleye1:

As I posted earlier, a state would simply re-emerge from vital anarcho-capitalistic institutions operating within a given locality. Banking, security, other key industries. All governments-in-waiting.

There's a difference between would and could.

[ChuckF]

How about, say, poor people?
I don't think the average poor person has a greater desire to die than anyone else.
No, but they have fewer resources to guarantee survival.

Would you miss stupid people?
What does that have to do with anything? Or are you implying that stupid people should die simply because they're stupid?

It's harder to forge a five dollar bill now than it's worth to do so. Make the certificates extremely hard to forge, maybe involving complex holograms. Or perhaps quantum encrypted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography) communication back and forth with the Certification Board and customers. Everyone has cellphones now, they could be used in such a system.
You are so right! The private sector has done such a great job of making United States currency exceedingly difficult to forge. It's like that time the private sector put a man on the moon.

Metal coins too heavy for ChuckF to carry? I prefer Susan Bs and Sacagawea Dollars myself. Water doesn't ruin them, and they don't get all crinkled up. I've been known to carry a pocket-full of them that weighs half a pound. I think I could handle a few button-sized gold and silver coins. Or were you referring to machines?
Where in my post did I say it was "too heavy?" Again, your imagination runs wild. When your currency is a commodity, it becomes difficult and expensive to transport large amounts of it due to security considerations. Like Fort Knox? Water has never ruined one of my paper bills, and when they get all crinkled up, the bank can just shred them and issue a new one because it has no inherent value. Coins, on the other hand, erode over time, or can be snipped or melted down for buillion.

Anyway, have you ever hauled, say, $1 billion in gold in your little pockets with your Sacagawea dollars?

Heaven forbid there's any of that. :rolleye1:
:giggle: You're not so good at the "capitalist" part, are you?

When currency is a commodity, people will hoard it during times of economic difficulty, reducing the money supply. When currency is a commodity, the amount of money must equal the value of the economy.

There's a difference between would and could.
Of course there is. :pat:

What would (or could) prevent that from happening?

[Watser?]

It was already during the late Middle Ages that international banking arose and merchants stopped carrying large amounts of cash with them. I don't know much about economics either, but I think it was the international credit system that was invented in those days, by the Venetians if I am not mistaken. It does not really need enforcing by a state I think, because in those days it was not a single state that enforced it either. It was based on mutual trust (and the fact that more money could be made in the long run by people who did not betray that trust). But if you wanted to cheat, then you could probably get away with it and run off to one of the Islamic states or to Russia or some remote place.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

No, but they have fewer resources to guarantee survival.


Certainly. So, are you of the opinion that desperately poor people would risk their own lives for food? If they're that desperate, they probably wouldn't have enough money to buy the "confirmed safe" food under a system like we have in the US.

What does that have to do with anything? Or are you implying that stupid people should die simply because they're stupid?

No, I'm not. But if someone dies because of their stupidity, that's their problem, isn't it? Put another way, since it's possible that someone would be stupid enough to try to purposefully crash their car into a wall, should walls have to have, by law, built-in shock-absorbers, airbags, whatever to protect them?

Perhaps as a mandatory government measure containers of bleach should have to have big labels on them that say, "Hey buddy, don't drink this!" When you open the bottle--"No, really, don't!" After all those warnings and they still drink it, the bottle will call 911 for them.

If someone sees a dead animal on the road, they're encouraged to stick a sign in it that says, "CAUTION: Not For Human Consumption". If the dead animal in question is on their own property and they do not place a warning sign in it, if someone walks onto their property, eats it and dies, they're open to being sued.

Of course I'm being hyperbolic here, but hopefully my point that we shouldn't have to dictate how we conduct things to protect the stupid from themselves.

You are so right! The private sector has done such a great job of making United States currency exceedingly difficult to forge. It's like that time the private sector put a man on the moon.

I really fail to see how this is a counter argument against what I said. Do you think a private company couldn't make a type of currency that would be just as difficult to forge as what the US Mint creates? If so, what do you base this on?

Where in my post did I say it was "too heavy?" Again, your imagination runs wild. When your currency is a commodity, it becomes difficult and expensive to transport large amounts of it due to security considerations. Like Fort Knox?

The United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox contains over one hundred billion dollars worth of gold. Rather a special case. The defenses at Fort Knox are overkill anyway. It wouldn't just be hard, it would be impossible to rob. More than a few bricks anyway, and nearly impossible to do that. More likely to win a multi million dollar lottery several times.

Millions of dollars worth of gold could be carried in a single armored truck. Banks routinely transport the same amount of paper and coin money in a single armored truck, and they rarely have trouble.

Anyway, have you ever hauled, say, $1 billion in gold in your little pockets with your Sacagawea dollars?

What rational bearing does this question have to the discussion at hand?

:giggle: You're not so good at the "capitalist" part, are you?

I guess I'm just one of those capitalists that thinks economic growth can't persist indefinitely on a planet with finite resources.


Of course there is. :pat:

What would (or could) prevent that from happening?

Let's see... assuming the anarcho-capitalistic system arose from a world with governments, and also assuming the collapse of the governments wasn't caused by a disaster or war, then that would mean it was brought about by the collective efforts of many people. If they went through all that trouble for a goal they wanted, I'd imagine they'd keep an eye on how things are running. When a corporation started to get too large, risking turning into a government, people could boycott. Now this might not work forever, generations pass and people forget, or want something new, but governments rise and fall, and you don't see too many people arguing that governments don't work just because they don't last forever.

[ChuckF]

Certainly. So, are you of the opinion that desperately poor people would risk their own lives for food? If they're that desperate, they probably wouldn't have enough money to buy the "confirmed safe" food under a system like we have in the US.
They too frequently don't, and that is a scathing criticism of the US, IMO.
Of course I'm being hyperbolic here, but hopefully my point that we shouldn't have to dictate how we conduct things to protect the stupid from themselves.
Yes, you are being hyperbolic, and you miss the point. There are things on which a rational individual, stupid or not, requires guidance. Things that they could not realistically be expected to do on their own. Such as evaluate food safety. I don't have a lab; I can't tell if the meat I'm buying is OK.

I suppose you would advocate tearing down all roadsigns too; those stop signs are only protecting the stupid from themselves.

I really fail to see how this is a counter argument against what I said. Do you think a private company couldn't make a type of currency that would be just as difficult to forge as what the US Mint creates? If so, what do you base this on?
I think a private company could do a fine job of creating a currency that's difficult to forge. Of course, there is the problem of Superdollars.

Would it be possible to create a fake certification that looks like the real one upon casual inspection, but is clearly fake under close scrutiny? How many hours of productivity must one sacrifice to see if its' real or not?

The United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox contains over one hundred billion dollars worth of gold. Rather a special case. The defenses at Fort Knox are overkill anyway. It wouldn't just be hard, it would be impossible to rob. More than a few bricks anyway, and nearly impossible to do that. More likely to win a multi million dollar lottery several times.

Millions of dollars worth of gold could be carried in a single armored truck. Banks routinely transport the same amount of paper and coin money in a single armored truck, and they rarely have trouble.
I should point out that one hundred billion dollars is a small fraction of the total economy of the United States. Since in a commodity-based currency system, the amount of currency must equal the volume of trade, we would have to have to find a LOT more gold and silver (and they have to keep their value) in order to avoid a steep decline in the standard of living.

If an armored truck full of paper money gets robbed, it's a loss to the bank, but not to the whole economy. The paper money supply is flexible. Not so with gold.
Anyway, have you ever hauled, say, $1 billion in gold in your little pockets with your Sacagawea dollars?

What rational bearing does this question have to the discussion at hand?
Let me rephrase: have you thought about the implications of a gold-based economy beyond your personal convenience?

I guess I'm just one of those capitalists that thinks economic growth can't persist indefinitely on a planet with finite resources.
So given the choice between a state with a government and economic growth, and the non-state without a government and almost certainly no economic growth (probably significant decline), you would choose the later? That hardly sounds capitalistic.
Of course there is. :pat:

What would (or could) prevent that from happening?

Let's see... assuming the anarcho-capitalistic system arose from a world with governments, and also assuming the collapse of the governments wasn't caused by a disaster or war, then that would mean it was brought about by the collective efforts of many people. If they went through all that trouble for a goal they wanted, I'd imagine they'd keep an eye on how things are running. When a corporation started to get too large, risking turning into a government, people could boycott. Now this might not work forever, generations pass and people forget, or want something new, but governments rise and fall, and you don't see too many people arguing that governments don't work just because they don't last forever.
I find unlikely the proposition that collective action could eliminate the state without simply replacing it. This was the goal and the failure of the Bolsheviks. But I will take your premise for granted.

Even when there is no alternative or if doing so would be against the economic interests of the individual? If we assume that a corporation has become so large that it has assumed some characteristics of a state or government, then we can assume that it enjoys a very large number of customers and a massive amount of gold. Where do people go for their consumer needs when boycotting? What of the problem of freeloaders, whose rational calculus demands that they let others do the boycotting, though they may disagree with the policies of corporation X. (They can get the benefits of a boycott without sacrificing material good and without expending the labor of the boycotters.)

Let's go back in time to 1900 or so. How could one boycott Standard Oil?

A switch from the state to the anarcho-capitalist model would almost certainly lead to a massive decline in the quality of life for a huge number of individuals. The economic demands of competing for what was once supplied by the state (protection of property, basic security, etc.) for a set cost (taxes) and the switch to a commodity-based currency would inevitably cause a significant economic contraction.

The depression may last for a few generations before it is replaced by a new state, arising from the competing corporate interests with the largest private armies.