Homesteading Forum banner
61 - 72 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
There's a lot of information about how Might Makes Right isn't the ultimate in human interactions in An/Cap society here:

The Not So Wild, Wild West | Terry Anderson, P.J. Hill

... And it was originally published just down the river from me at the University of Montana
Yep, and that “information” is the same rationales and logical fallacies that the Marxists use when trying to tell us how communism can actually work. They paint a utopian picture that ignores inconvenient inevitabilities.

In Anarcho-capitalism, we all own what we own, with no societal security in it. When someone trespasses against our rightful property, our only recourse for justice is to take it back ourselves. If the powerful trespasses against the weak, the only redress the weak have is to build a Union more powerful than the one behind the trespasser.

Just as Marxism and Oligarchy/Monarchy shortly distills down to a single point of hyper-centralized power dictating the rules to everyone else, anarchy, in any of its forms, results in the accrual of power in one central point.

You take my saw, so me and my buddy come to get it back. You see us coming, and get three of your buddies to come to your aid. The village we live in see this developing and rush to my side to see right done, so you make a deal with the city to support you. I go gather together two cities worth of torch and pitchfork carriers, and, within a few weeks, a king is anointed to decide which one of us gets to keep my saw.

The king sees it’s a better saw than the one he had, so he grants it to himself… for the good of all.


Our original form of government was about as close as one can get to the flame of anarchy without falling onto the water slide that takes it immediately back to Monarchy/Oligarchy/Communism.
 

·
I love boobies
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #62 ·
From the first link I provided:

"The purpose of this paper is to take us from the theoretical world of anarchy to a case study of its application. To accomplish our task we will first discuss what is meant by "anarchocapitalism" and present several hypotheses relating to the nature of social organization in this world.

These hypotheses will then be tested in the context of the American West during its earliest settlement. We propose to examine property-rights formulation and protection under voluntary organizations such as private protection agencies, vigilantes, wagon trains, and early mining camps. Although the early West was not completely anarchistic, we believe that government as a legitimate agency of coercion was absent for a long enough period to provide insights into the operation and viability of property rights in the absence of a formal state. The nature of contracts for the provision of "public goods" and the evolution of western "laws" for the period from 1830 to 1900 will provide the data for this case study.

The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.

These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
From the first link I provided:

"The purpose of this paper is to take us from the theoretical world of anarchy to a case study of its application. To accomplish our task we will first discuss what is meant by "anarchocapitalism" and present several hypotheses relating to the nature of social organization in this world.

These hypotheses will then be tested in the context of the American West during its earliest settlement. We propose to examine property-rights formulation and protection under voluntary organizations such as private protection agencies, vigilantes, wagon trains, and early mining camps. Although the early West was not completely anarchistic, we believe that government as a legitimate agency of coercion was absent for a long enough period to provide insights into the operation and viability of property rights in the absence of a formal state. The nature of contracts for the provision of "public goods" and the evolution of western "laws" for the period from 1830 to 1900 will provide the data for this case study.

The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.

These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect."
Yes. You’ve posted that link a couple times, and it’s far from the first time an anarchist has tried (and failed) to use the “Wild West” as an illustration of how anarchy can actually work. It’s predicated on a series of logical fallacies.

The argument relies on the contradiction that the Wild West was not as lawless as history has painted it while simultaneously being more lawless than it actually was. Contrary to the argument, there was government, in one form and/or another, throughout nearly all of what we refer to as the wild west. Using it as an example of lawlessness, according to the true definition of the word, is dishonest. In the same breath, they will provide anecdotes about prosperity and peace, conveniently ignoring the countless examples of murder and theft, and then close the point as if they’ve somehow managed to prove a negative.

The hinge pin of Anarcho-capitalist justice is, in the context of the Wild West, private security services like Pinkerton’s. Using that as a proof of concept is inapt, though, given that Pinkerton’s was operating as a security augment in an era where government based justice existed but was only stretched thin, and completely ignores the documented corruption and abuses that Pinkerton’s agents participated in.

A modern adaptation of that would be the private security firms that were employed in the GWOT. Iraq, circa 2004 was even closer to an anarchic theatre than the US west circa 1870, and the private security contractors were serving the same functions as Pinkerton’s was in the old west. If one wants to use that illustration in their argument claiming how well anarcho-capitalism can work, they’d be challenged to construct that argument without leaving out Black Water.

The self-styled academic papers in support of anarcho-capitalism all end up being exactly as intellectually-dishonest as the ones written to claim how great communism can be. They are because they have to be. One can’t construct an argument in favor of either without having to cherry pick misleading isolated events while willfully ignoring the mountain of historical evidence that proves that neither can work.

In either system, the powerful have the power necessary to accumulate more power, and there is no baseline protection for the weak to protect what little power they have. The accumulation of power, unchecked by the rule of law becomes an unstoppable physical principle, like that of planetary accretion.

Of course, that won’t stop pseudo intellectuals with an agenda from writing papers about how they’ve singularly figured out how to overcome the laws of physics and create a communist or anarchist government that somehow won’t result in all of the power being consolidated into the hands of a select few individuals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,355 Posts
Yeah, using the wild west as an illustration of how great it would be with no rules falls pretty short. We had sheriffs with monarch like powers, judges who played god, vigilantes, gun confiscation, criminal factions posing as peacekeepers, rampant criminality, genocide, oppression, and pretty much every hallmark of societal failure.

In terms of cannabis, we actually need some governmental involvement. This will never happen unless things change at a federal level. The plant has over a hundred distinct chemical compounds that affect the human body. The human body changes these compounds into metabolites that may react, interact, and impact in even more diverse ways. Each plant being a unique entity on a genetic basis, and having different cannabinoid profiles, further compounds the problem. There is no standard dose, or standard profile. Beyond genetic uniqueness, trichome development plays a further role in a variable product.
Sure, you can grow a plant, of a supposed strain, and harvest it, sample it, and then determine personal dosage, and desired chemical profile, but it would be much better for the masses to have some sort of lab tested and rated comparability. What would be really nice, is for Gurney's to carry weed, from a huge clone bank, like apple tress, cloning is the only way to ensure consistency, so that people could know exactly what they were getting, and to take that a step further, specific extracts, beyond the CBD that is sold now (which may or may not be CBD or in a high enough dosage to deliver any results). Extracts could be administered in edible form, much more consistently, pleasantly, and without all the smoking and coughing. But to do those kinds of things, you need real research, and real working regulations, and authorities trying to help consumers and suppliers, none of these are real realities at this point.

Right now, we have hippies, cancer patients, people with health problems and chronic pain getting inconsistent results, because of a few neanderthal lawmen with a Nancy Reagan poster over their bed. If the big pharma oligarchy finally relents, the law dogs will be shushed, but then they will own a branded product to replace the failed experiments that they have been selling to the general public to meet some of the needs that can be better served by a simple plant. There is not a great path forward involving anything resembling freedom, so maybe it is best left in the psuedo-science of hippy gardeners.
 

·
I love boobies
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #65 ·
If we were to engage seriously in the task of dismantling the government as it exists in the US, the political economist would find no scarcity of programs to eliminate. However, as the dismantling continued, the decisions would become more and more difficult, with the last "public goods" to be dealt with probably being programs designed to define and enforce property rights. Consider the following two categories of responses to this problem:

The first school we shall represent as the "constitutionalist" or "social contractarian" school. For this group the important question is "how do rights re-emerge and come to command respect? How do 'laws' emerge that carry with them general respect for their 'legitimacy'?"1 This position does not allow us to "'jump over' the whole set of issues involved in defining the rights of persons in the first place."2

Here, collective action is taken as a necessary step in the establishment of a social contract or constitutional contract which specifies these rights. To the extent that rights could be perfectly defined, the only role for the state would be in the protection of those rights, since the law designed for that protection is the only public good.

If rights cannot be perfectly well-defined, a productive role for the state will arise. The greater the degree to which private rights cannot be perfectly defined, the more the collective action will be plunged into the "eternal dilemma of democratic government," which is "how can government, itself the reflection of interests, establish the legitimate boundaries of self-interest, and how can it, conversely carve out those areas of intervention that will be socially protective and collectively useful?"3

The contractarian solution to this dilemma is the establishment of a rule of higher law or a constitution, which specifies the protective and productive roles of the government. Since the productive role, because of the free-rider problem, necessarily requires coercion, the government will be given a monopoly on the use of force. Were this not the case, some individuals would choose not to pay for services from which they derive benefits.

The second school can be labeled "anarchocapitalist" or "private-property anarchist." In its extreme form this school would advocate eliminating all forms of collective action since all functions of government can be replaced by individuals possessing private rights exchangeable in the market place. Under this system all transactions would be voluntary except insofar as the protection of individual rights and enforcement of contracts required coercion. The essential question facing this school is how can law and order, which do require some coercion, be supplied without ultimately resulting in one provider of those services holding a monopoly on coercion, i.e., government.

If a dominant protective firm or association emerges after exchanges take place, we will have the minimal state as defined by Nozick and will have lapsed back into the world of the "constitutionalist." The private-property anarchist's view that markets can provide protection services is summarized as follows
 

·
I love boobies
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #66 ·
The profit motive will then see to it that the most efficient providers of high-quality arbitration rise to the top and that inefficient and graft-oriented police lose their jobs. In short, the market is capable of providing justice at the cheapest price. According to Rothbard, to claim that these services are "public goods" and cannot be sold to individuals in varying amounts is to make a claim which actually has little basis in fact.4

Hence, the anarchocapitalists place faith in the profit-seeking entrepreneurs to find the optimal size and type of protective services and faith in competition to prevent the establishment of a monopoly in the provision of these services.

There are essentially two differences between the two schools discussed above. First, there is the empirical question of whether competition can actually provide the protection services. On the anarchocapitalist side, there is the belief that it can. On the constitutionalists or "minimal-state" side, there is the following argument.

Conflicts may occur, and one agency will win. Persons who have previously been clients of losing agencies will desert and commence purchasing their protection from winning agencies. In this manner a single protective agency or association will eventually come to dominate the market for policing services over a territory. Independent persons who refuse to purchase protection from anyone may remain outside the scope of the dominant agency, but such independents cannot be allowed to punish clients of the agency on their own. They must be coerced into not punishing. In order to legitimize their coercion, these persons must be compensated, but only to the extent that their deprivation warrants.5

The second issue is more conceptual than empirical, and hence cannot be entirely resolved through observation. This issue centers on the question of how rights are determined in the first place; how do we get a starting point with all its status quo characteristics from which the game can be played.

Buchanan, a leading constitutionalist, criticizes Friedman and Rothbard, two leading private-property anarchists, because "they simply 'jump over' the whole set of issues involved in defining the rights of persons in the first place."6 To theconstitutionalist, the Lockean concept of mixing labor with resources to arrive at "natural rights" is not sufficient. The contractarian approach suggests that the starting point is determined by the initial bargaining process which results in the constitutional contract.

Debate over this issue will undoubtedly continue, but even Buchanan agrees th

if the distribution or imputation of the rights of persons (rights to do things, both with respect to other persons and to physical things) is settled, then away we go. And aside from differences on certain specifics (which may be important but relatively amenable to analysis, e.g., the efficacy of market-like arrangements for internal and external peace-keeping), I should accept many of the detailed reforms that these passionate advocates propose

Our purpose in this paper is to discuss, in a historical context, some of the important issues that Buchanan says are amenable to analysis. We do not plan to debate the issue of the starting point, but will be looking at the "efficacy of market-like arrangements for internal … peacekeeping.

It does seem, for the time period and the geographical area which we are examining, that there was a distribution of rights which was accepted either because of general agreement to some basic precepts of natural law or because the inhabitants of the American West came out of a society in which certain rights were defined and enforce

Such a starting point is referred to as a Schelling point, a point of commonality that exists in the minds of the participants in some social situation9 Even in the absence of any enforcement mechanism, most members of Western society agreed that certain rights to use and control property existed. Thus when a miner argued that a placer claim was his because he "was there first," that claim carried more weight than if he claimed it simply because he was most powerfu

Tastes, culture, ethics, and numerous other influences give Schelling-point characteristics to some claims but not to others. The long period of conflicts between the Indians and the settlers can be attributed to a lack of any such Schelling points. We concentrate, however, on arrangements for peace-keeping and enforcement that existed among the nonindigenous, white populatio

In the following pages we describe the private enforcement of rights in the West between 1830 and 1900. This description does allow one to test, in a limited fashion, some of the hypotheses put forth about how anarchocapitalism might functio

We qualify the test with "limited" because a necessary feature of such a system is the absence of a monopoly on coercion.10 Various coercive agencies would exist but none would have a legitimized monopoly on the use of such coercion. The difficulty of dealing with this proposition in the American West is obvious. Although for much of the period, formal government agencies for the protection of rights were not present, such agencies were always lurking in the background.
 

·
I love boobies
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #67 ·
Therefore, none of the private enforcement means operated entirely independent of government influence.

Also, one has to be careful in always describing private agencies as "nongovernment" because, to the extent that they develop and become the agency of legitimized coercion they also qualify as "government." Although numerous descriptions of such private agencies exist, it is oftentimes difficult to determine when they are enhancing competition and when they are reducing it.

Despite the above caveats, the West is a useful testing ground for several of the specific hypotheses about how anarchocapitalism might work. We use David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom as our basis for the formulation of hypotheses about the working of anarchocapitalism, because it is decidedly nonutopian and it does set out, in a fairly specific form, the actual mechanisms under which a system of nongovernment protective agencies would operate. The major propositions are:

  1. Anarchocapitalism is not chaos. Property rights will be protected and civil order will prevail.
  2. Private agencies will provide the necessary functions for preservation of an orderly society.
  3. Private protection agencies will soon discover that "warfare" is a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) will result.
  4. The concept of "justice" is not an immutable one that only needs to be discovered. Preferences do vary across individuals as to the rules they prefer to live under and the price they are willing to pay for such rules. Therefore, significant differences in rules might exist in various societies under anarchocapitalism.
  5. There are not significant enough economies of scale in crime so that major "mafia" organizations evolve and dominate society.
  6. Competition among protective agencies and adjudication bodies will serve as healthy checks on undesirable behavior. Consumers will have better information than under government and will use it in judging these agencies.


Check the link for all the supporting cases
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,395 Posts
Therefore, none of the private enforcement means operated entirely independent of government influence.

Also, one has to be careful in always describing private agencies as "nongovernment" because, to the extent that they develop and become the agency of legitimized coercion they also qualify as "government." Although numerous descriptions of such private agencies exist, it is oftentimes difficult to determine when they are enhancing competition and when they are reducing it.

Despite the above caveats, the West is a useful testing ground for several of the specific hypotheses about how anarchocapitalism might work. We use David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom as our basis for the formulation of hypotheses about the working of anarchocapitalism, because it is decidedly nonutopian and it does set out, in a fairly specific form, the actual mechanisms under which a system of nongovernment protective agencies would operate. The major propositions are:

  1. Anarchocapitalism is not chaos. Property rights will be protected and civil order will prevail.
  2. Private agencies will provide the necessary functions for preservation of an orderly society.
  3. Private protection agencies will soon discover that "warfare" is a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) will result.
  4. The concept of "justice" is not an immutable one that only needs to be discovered. Preferences do vary across individuals as to the rules they prefer to live under and the price they are willing to pay for such rules. Therefore, significant differences in rules might exist in various societies under anarchocapitalism.
  5. There are not significant enough economies of scale in crime so that major "mafia" organizations evolve and dominate society.
  6. Competition among protective agencies and adjudication bodies will serve as healthy checks on undesirable behavior. Consumers will have better information than under government and will use it in judging these agencies.


Check the link for all the supporting cases
I tried to give you an opportunity to describe your dream in your own words. You are in love with the words of others describing a system that can never, will never work. It is as much a fantasy as communism is.

No system works that does not acknowledge and govern the nature of man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,395 Posts
@HDRider Everyone's got opinions, and in mine, there's way too many from others in this thread without any kind of facts or supporting evidence.
I think they are right, and you got it wrong cowboy
 
61 - 72 of 72 Posts
Top