" The Demonisation Of The Right "

[fluffy666]

You would have paid through Paypal, yes?

If not, you would deserve all you got.

Doesn't matter.

The ultra-libertarian assumption is that groups of any size can be effectively self-policing; which means that the threat of negative feedback would be sufficient to ensure that sending cash through the post (in the above case) would be safe. The point is that systems like eBay can only work because there are rules that apply to all, enforced by a (theoretically disinterested) third party.

[Traktion]

Here's a challenge: Start paying people to develop open source and see how long your cooperation lasts.. the fact is, Open Source development will be, for the majority, a leisure activity. The kind of thing one would hope to see happen under communism, where people who had their basic needs met would cooperate spontaneously on more complex tasks.

Actually, many companies pay their staff to work on open source projects too, as part of their company's business strategy. They add the bits they need and the changes are released under the same GPL, open source, licence.

Besides, the point was that Scepticus was asserting that voluntary hierarchies couldn't deliver complex technologies. IMO, my point about open source software is that it proves this to be untrue.

[Traktion]

You are making an apples-to-oranges comparison - private sector security exists only to protect those who pay, the police exist (generally) to protect everyone according to a democratically decided set of laws - including those accused of crimes.

We all pay for the public sector police too, via our taxes. Making contributions voluntary, along with providing competing services, doesn't mean that we will be left unprotected. However, worst case, you would have the right to defend yourself using whatever force is required.

I do agree that the police provide additional services to protecting individuals though. There are a whole raft of arbitrary laws which they maintain, which are often little to do with protecting individuals from the violence of others. Whether people would be prepared to pay for these if they weren't forced to is a question that would only be answered if we removed the police. I suspect most people would be primarily be concerned with their personal safety and the prevention of theft of their stuff.

[Injin]

Doesn't matter.

The ultra-libertarian assumption is that groups of any size can be effectively self-policing; which means that the threat of negative feedback would be sufficient to ensure that sending cash through the post (in the above case) would be safe. The point is that systems like eBay can only work because there are rules that apply to all, enforced by a (theoretically disinterested) third party.

Nope.

The "ultra libertarian" stance is that coercing people is evil.

And again - your arguments that it's neccessary because its always happened before could also be applied to slavery, wife beating, child labour etc etc

[Traktion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

As far as eBay goes, if a person took a £500 payment from you and didn't bother to post the goods, would you regard giving negative feedback as an adequate punishment, or would you involve higher authorities?

You would have paid through Paypal, yes?

If not, you would deserve all you got.

Doesn't matter.

The ultra-libertarian assumption is that groups of any size can be effectively self-policing; which means that the threat of negative feedback would be sufficient to ensure that sending cash through the post (in the above case) would be safe. The point is that systems like eBay can only work because there are rules that apply to all, enforced by a (theoretically disinterested) third party.

There are two points here.

One is whether you should trust an unknown individual, based on the trust and feedback from others. I'd say you have to make a judgement call. If you're making a large payment, you may want to meet the trader in person to make the exchange. You may want to hold the money in escrow, until the goods arrive. In other words, you will do due diligence, just as you do now*.

The second point is how you pay (as Neil points out). PayPal will refund money if they believe the trader has broken the contract. Traders who accept payments through PayPal accept these terms, as do buyers. In the same way as credit cards provide insurance against such losses, PayPal reserve the right to reverse payments. This gives the buyer peace of mind and makes it difficult for individuals to continue to trading without delivering promised goods (PayPal/Credit Card companies will pull the plug on them).

EDIT: Note that companies can currently fail and you may lose your money anyway too. They can also currently commit fraud and they will likely get away with it (only about 1/4 of crimes are currently solved in the UK). In short, even with state laws, it doesn't make everything 100% safe - not even close.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Traktion

[(Blizzard)]

Doesn't matter.

The ultra-libertarian assumption is that groups of any size can be effectively self-policing; which means that the threat of negative feedback would be sufficient to ensure that sending cash through the post (in the above case) would be safe. The point is that systems like eBay can only work because there are rules that apply to all, enforced by a (theoretically disinterested) third party.

You ignore Mutually assured destruction, which can ensure cooperation in groups of individuals who have roughly equal ability to damage each other.

What doesn't work, is spontaneous cooperation in groups of individuals where a few individuals have all the power.

[snowflux]

Nope.

The "ultra libertarian" stance is that coercing people is evil.

And again - your arguments that it's neccessary because its always happened before could also be applied to slavery, wife beating, child labour etc etc

Given that human beings are social creatures and that most social interactions involve some degree of coercion, you might just as well say that going to the toilet is evil!

[(Blizzard)]

http://en.wikipedia....nbar%27s_number

As far as eBay goes, if a person took a £500 payment from you and didn't bother to post the goods, would you regard giving negative feedback as an adequate punishment, or would you involve higher authorities?

Would higher authorities actually help me?

I suspect I would be told that it was my own fault, I should be more careful and to ****** off.

If the government casts a spell of protection over my internet, will its powers be strong enough to ward off the Nigerian witchdoctors?

Edited July 26, 2011 by (Blizzard)

[fluffy666]

We all pay for the public sector police too, via our taxes. Making contributions voluntary, along with providing competing services, doesn't mean that we will be left unprotected. However, worst case, you would have the right to defend yourself using whatever force is required.

The point of the police being a societal force instead of a private force means that the laws they apply (which are again agreed democratically), apply to all equally. This is the ideal, anyway.

Your completing private security services would not be enforcing any laws - laws don't exist without a state - and obviously those with sufficient wealth would have access to sufficient forces to make themselves effectively untouchable. Good luck defending yourself against someone with a private army.

Now, if you end up with a caste of effectively untouchable rich people with private armies, who can effectively tell you what to do on pain of, well, pain, that's called feudalism. Feudalism is an economic dead end, and was only stopped by the increased power of (drum roll...) the centralised state.

I think that the fundamental problem with this kind of anarcho-libertarianism is that is seeks to abolish politics or political systems - where politics is fundamentally the power to compel people - on a very naive assumption that everyone will 'play nice' for the greater good. Ironically, the early communists had very similar assumptions (Read the Communist manifesto if you don't believe me). Problem is, this means that they have no model for what a good government should look like, since all government is defined as evil. Hard won concepts such as separation of powers, equality before the law, the full franchise and (ironically) the existence of private property and freedom from intrusive search and seizure all get thrown out, because they are the functions of an evil state.

You may notice that this has been the general direction in which the 'right wing nutters' end up steering society, even though it's a long way from the desired goal.

[Injin]

Given that human beings are social creatures and that most social interactions involve some degree of coercion, you might just as well say that going to the toilet is evil!

Social interaction don't require any coercion.

I'm sorry if your life has lead you to believe otherwise.

[Traktion]

You ignore Mutually assured destruction, which can ensure cooperation in groups of individuals who have roughly equal ability to damage each other.

What doesn't work, is spontaneous cooperation in groups of individuals where a few individuals have all the power.

You could argue that there are times when this is mutually beneficial too though. Some people are better leaders than others, which leads to better productivity and wealth for all. Ofc, if the said individuals abuse their position of power, people won't stick around. As has been mentioned before, individuals give power to those who they see fit to wield it, but they can retract it just as easily.

[snowflux]

Social interaction don't require any coercion.

I'm sorry if your life has lead you to believe otherwise.

Don't be ridiculous. How do you think driving would function if we weren't coerced to stop at red lights and drive on the left, to take one of countless examples.

Edit: The ultra-libertarian stance of "all coercion is evil" is just as ludicrous and alien to human nature as the ultra-communist stance of "everyone should share everything they have".

Edited July 26, 2011 by snowflux

[Injin]

Don't be ridiculous. How do you think driving would function if we weren't coerced to stop at red lights and drive on the left, to take one of countless examples.

Perfectly fine. In fact the removal of all laws improves road safety.

Edit: The ultra-libertarian stance of "all coercion is evil" is just as ludicrous and alien to human nature as the ultra-communist stance of "everyone should share everything they have".

Nope. Coercion is evil empirically, rationally, logically and morally.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Injin

[fluffy666]

There are two points here.

One is whether you should trust an unknown individual, based on the trust and feedback from others. I'd say you have to make a judgement call. If you're making a large payment, you may want to meet the trader in person to make the exchange. You may want to hold the money in escrow, until the goods arrive. In other words, you will do due diligence, just as you do now*.

But obviously with no system of criminal enforcement, you have to be much less trusting. Hence less trade.

The second point is how you pay (as Neil points out). PayPal will refund money if they believe the trader has broken the contract. Traders who accept payments through PayPal accept these terms, as do buyers. In the same way as credit cards provide insurance against such losses, PayPal reserve the right to reverse payments. This gives the buyer peace of mind and makes it difficult for individuals to continue to trading without delivering promised goods (PayPal/Credit Card companies will pull the plug on them).

So, refer to a higher authority... still, fraud pays a much better rate of return no matter how often the plug is pulled. Unless you have a state which can do things like put you in prison or even just track your ID.

EDIT: Note that companies can currently fail and you may lose your money anyway too. They can also currently commit fraud and they will likely get away with it (only about 1/4 of crimes are currently solved in the UK). In short, even with state laws, it doesn't make everything 100% safe - not even close.

No, it doesn't. But the *threat* of coercion is a significant factor in deterring fraud.

[fluffy666]

Nope. Coercion is evil empirically, rationally, logically and morally.

So is death. However, this does not mean it can be abolished by fiat.

Coercion is an inevitable part of living in a large social group, and as such it is critical that it is done as fairly and equally as possible and only when absolutely essential. If you abandon this responsibility you invite all sorts of horrors..

[Traktion]

The point of the police being a societal force instead of a private force means that the laws they apply (which are again agreed democratically), apply to all equally. This is the ideal, anyway.

Your completing private security services would not be enforcing any laws - laws don't exist without a state - and obviously those with sufficient wealth would have access to sufficient forces to make themselves effectively untouchable. Good luck defending yourself against someone with a private army.

Now, if you end up with a caste of effectively untouchable rich people with private armies, who can effectively tell you what to do on pain of, well, pain, that's called feudalism. Feudalism is an economic dead end, and was only stopped by the increased power of (drum roll...) the centralised state.

I think that the fundamental problem with this kind of anarcho-libertarianism is that is seeks to abolish politics or political systems - where politics is fundamentally the power to compel people - on a very naive assumption that everyone will 'play nice' for the greater good. Ironically, the early communists had very similar assumptions (Read the Communist manifesto if you don't believe me). Problem is, this means that they have no model for what a good government should look like, since all government is defined as evil. Hard won concepts such as separation of powers, equality before the law, the full franchise and (ironically) the existence of private property and freedom from intrusive search and seizure all get thrown out, because they are the functions of an evil state.

You may notice that this has been the general direction in which the 'right wing nutters' end up steering society, even though it's a long way from the desired goal.

I don't agree with this assertion, primarily as you're arguing that people will gain monopoly powers (of force) in a free market. In a true free market, maintaining a monopoly is costly. In this example, you would have to pay for your private army, just to maintain your position of power. Therefore, whatever you're doing must outweigh the cost of maintaining your 'mini state' - or mini dictatorship. The only way our modern states do this, is using coercion to extract taxes (or extortion to use the non-statist term), as otherwise it is unaffordable.

While I can understand people wanting to freely associate themselves with someone who pays them well, I find it hard to believe that people would want to associate with such a person, if they're extorting money from them. An uprising would be all it took to disperse the power again, as they would no longer have the wealth to draw support.

There may be a case for Stockholm Syndrome being in effect here, but then you could say the same thing about our current state monopoly too. We have the power to collectively refuse it, should we wish. We just have to make sure that we know what we want next time and I would argue that progress is trading freely, rather than through coercion.

Reflecting on this some more, you could say that the democratic state is a superior to a dictatorship state, which is why the former usurped the latter. However, this isn't to say that choosing to have no state isn't an option. Having no coercion is morally preferable to coercion via a dictatorship or a democracy. In the same way as democracy replaced dictatorships/monarchies, we may move from democracy to something else better still.

[Injin]

So is death. However, this does not mean it can be abolished by fiat.

Coercion is an inevitable part of living in a large social group, and as such it is critical that it is done as fairly and equally as possible and only when absolutely essential. If you abandon this responsibility you invite all sorts of horrors..

I'm not suggesting abolishing it by fiat.

All I ever say is if you want certain results you have to use certain methods.

Coercion doesn't get the stated results it is after, therefore anyone sane will drop it.

Quite happy to accept there are plenty of lunatics knocking around, but if you want me to join in saying they are neccessary or even good forget it.

[Injin]

No, it doesn't. But the *threat* of coercion is a significant factor in deterring fraud.

Nope - the largest frauds ever in history over the last few years have been state backed.

[Traktion]

But obviously with no system of criminal enforcement, you have to be much less trusting. Hence less trade.

The UK police catch 1 in 4 offenders. It's hardly stopping crime.

Regardless, in the absence of a system of criminal enforcement, people may just take more care before they trade. There is nothing wrong with that either.

So, refer to a higher authority... still, fraud pays a much better rate of return no matter how often the plug is pulled. Unless you have a state which can do things like put you in prison or even just track your ID.

Yes, a voluntary higher authority. Having no state doesn't mean there will be no structure.

What's to stop your ID being tracked without a state? PayPal may insist on you providing credentials, much like any bank might, before giving you access to their payment service. You don't need to throw someone in jail to make it difficult for them to trade.

No, it doesn't. But the *threat* of coercion is a significant factor in deterring fraud.

I'm sure it is. However, cutting someone's ability to trade, get a job or be trusted in general, due to a poor reputation, is very effective too.

[Traktion]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/the-road-ahead/road-design-town-planning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_street

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

Very interesting. Thanks for the links.

[Traktion]

Reported crime, lets not forget people dont want to report crime now as it lowers the value of their house price!

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=166550

Good point! I know some people who will never call the police, as they think it is a waste of time.

A case involving my father in law being assaulted being a case in point. He went to ask his daughter's neighbour to turn their music down and he ended up in A&E with stitches (he's a tough bloke too, so it could have been worse). He wasn't going to report it, but his immediate family convinced him to go through the hoops, but the court case was a joke. The police changed his statement and it was clear the police were protecting the thugs, likely trying to catch the criminals further up the chain. It looks likely that they will get away with a slap on the wrist, despite them having forced half of the residence out of the council housing where his daughter lived (many are boarded up now and it's turned from bad to worse).

Edited July 26, 2011 by Traktion

[fluffy666]

I don't agree with this assertion, primarily as you're arguing that people will gain monopoly powers (of force) in a free market. In a true free market, maintaining a monopoly is costly. In this example, you would have to pay for your private army, just to maintain your position of power. Therefore, whatever you're doing must outweigh the cost of maintaining your 'mini state' - or mini dictatorship. The only way our modern states do this, is using coercion to extract taxes (or extortion to use the non-statist term), as otherwise it is unaffordable.

A 'true free market' is not a stable state of affairs. You are going to end up paying protection money any way, the only control you have is how much you pay and how it gets spent.

While I can understand people wanting to freely associate themselves with someone who pays them well, I find it hard to believe that people would want to associate with such a person, if they're extorting money from them. An uprising would be all it took to disperse the power again, as they would no longer have the wealth to draw support..

On a practical level, you only need to keep the ~20% of the population who are physically capable of uprising happy, or at least cowed. Violent uprising is hard when you are young, old or have kids.

You are also assuming that people who get political/coercive power in the way I describe are going to be happy leaving people to freely move and associate. There is no government to ensure this!

Reflecting on this some more, you could say that the democratic state is a superior to a dictatorship state, which is why the former usurped the latter. However, this isn't to say that choosing to have no state isn't an option. Having no coercion is morally preferable to coercion via a dictatorship or a democracy. In the same way as democracy replaced dictatorships/monarchies, we may move from democracy to something else better still.

Yes, we hand over political power to highly powerful (and, critically, disinterested) computer systems.

What you DON'T do is pretend that political power doesn't exist.

[EUBanana]

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.

Is Scepticus arguing that nothing was invented before 1914? Essentially pre-1914 we actually had a minarchy, at least in modern terms. 8% of GDP is miniscule by modern standards after all.

Interestingly the Renaissance happened despite an absence of copyright laws too, but thats a different argument.

[Traktion]

A 'true free market' is not a stable state of affairs. You are going to end up paying protection money any way, the only control you have is how much you pay and how it gets spent.

Why is a true free market not a stable state of affairs?

Also, you don't have to spend protection money. You can always secure your house and protect it yourself.

On a practical level, you only need to keep the ~20% of the population who are physically capable of uprising happy, or at least cowed. Violent uprising is hard when you are young, old or have kids.

You are also assuming that people who get political/coercive power in the way I describe are going to be happy leaving people to freely move and associate. There is no government to ensure this!

You don't need to have a violent uprising. People just need to refuse to pay their extortion money and the state/gang will whither on the vine. Even the current state couldn't throw everyone in jail for doing this.

The government already stops people from freely moving and associating. It also uses extortion to raise money, with democracy providing a veil of legitimacy. The government ensures quite the opposite of what you are supposing it does.

Yes, we hand over political power to highly powerful (and, critically, disinterested) computer systems.

What you DON'T do is pretend that political power doesn't exist.

Hand political power over to computer systems? How's that going to help? You will still need people to suggest laws and VIs will still gain influence one way or another. A computer can count votes and divvy up resources as individuals request, but it's still mob rule, through coercion.

An individual's power only exists, if other individuals gift them with it. Without the support of the many, the few are powerless.

[Traktion]

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.

Is Scepticus arguing that nothing was invented before 1914? Essentially pre-1914 we actually had a minarchy, at least in modern terms. 8% of GDP is miniscule by modern standards after all.

Interestingly the Renaissance happened despite an absence of copyright laws too, but thats a different argument.

Very interesting - do you have a source/link for that passage?

EDIT: More interestingly, what the state does provide above could arguably provided without a state. Schooling for all is perhaps the biggest challenge though, as it's not cheap (in a different form, it could be more so though).

Edited July 26, 2011 by Traktion