Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[Peter]

Thomas wrote:

The main obstacle in/with/too Anarcho-Capitalist (free market policing, -courts and -defense) I think is actually slowly going away. As long as we can keep some capitalist element alive in our current world society, we will be outgrowing it. Technology in all areas is actually starting to catch up to political philosophy.

end quote

Brant responded:

Theoreticals out of theoreticals creating even more theoreticals.

end quote

Everyone knows of a home town neighborhood, where the people are civil and decent, as in a certain Iowa musical . . .

Seventy six trombones led the big parade . . . With a hundred and ten cornets close at hand . . .

And as you may remember, Professor Harold Hill, in "The Music Man," is a scam artist: Anarcho Capitalism. The town council members are naïve idiots: Government. But the folks are people you would like living in your ideal home town. Now a person might argue that the scam artist is less of a problem than government encroachment. On the other hand a LOSS of government as in a major catastrophe can lead to a desolate landscape full of murder and theft. How would that Iowan towns people react if the town council and the sheriff disappeared? Would they adjust to it, but remain decent folk? For how long? Weeks? Years? Centuries?

What if Clem, right on the streets of River City is whipping his horse? What if he beats his kids on Main Street with a belt? What if Clem pees in the reservoir? Thomas, and all of you decent people, do you think River City would REMAIN a good place without a sheriff, and human rights guaranteed in a constitution?

[Brant Gaede]

Now, Peter, I was referring to an entire post, not a small paragraph.

--Brant

[ThomasHägg]

Thomas,

Welcome to OL.

Irrespective of any freedom-based social system, I am convinced that freedom only can exist if people want to be good and try to be. Freedom among a bunch of scumbags does not really mean much. In fact, it goes away and gangs form.

Thus freedom in practice is based more on the activity of intellectuals and artists--especially the morality based folks--than it is on any politician or political theory.

I include religious people in this argument. When they spread the desire to be good, they enhance freedom. When they get cult-like or put a huge focus on scapegoating, they work against freedom.

As to technology, there are great things coming. But there are bad things, too. Our society is turning into a snitching society (electronic snitching by algorithms) and I definitely don't see freedom arising from that. A snitching culture is one of the characteristics of all dictatorships.

Michael

Thanks Michael! Good to be here

There certainly are obstacles. But the main obstacle is immorality itself and I think there comes a point with every form of technology when people have to choose what they want.

"Nuclear power won't go away because I want it to. So do I also want global nuclear catastrophy or would a global nuclear stalemate be a better choice?"

- If such a stalemate never arives or there is no apparent reason to avoid "snitching" and similar cultural problems, then well, we could experiene something really bad. There is no denying that. But there is also no denying that we will not be able and we should not seek to stop technological development.

Theoreticals out of theoreticals creating even more theoreticals.

--Brant

brains gone wild

I will admit to that. But I think even theoreticals can be of huge benefits. These days I think it is mostly just the style I am the most comfortable writing in, but I will try to resolve this in the future and make more arguments from objective knowledge in the actual text. For someone that made it from Christianity and a few different Socialist views to (at least a more than previously) Rational Selfishness, I still remain mighty proud of my achievment. It took a lot of work and it is clearly an improvement. I also think I might have made other "minor" errors in my claims, but I will be choosing wisely how to spend my time here and put it to use elsewhere than correcting and rewriting. My post was made to encourage further discussion and make my overall thinking clear, both of which I am happy to see succeeded.

Thomas wrote:

The main obstacle in/with/too Anarcho-Capitalist (free market policing, -courts and -defense) I think is actually slowly going away. As long as we can keep some capitalist element alive in our current world society, we will be outgrowing it. Technology in all areas is actually starting to catch up to political philosophy.

end quote

Brant responded:

Theoreticals out of theoreticals creating even more theoreticals.

end quote

Everyone knows of a home town neighborhood, where the people are civil and decent, as in a certain Iowa musical . . .

Seventy six trombones led the big parade . . . With a hundred and ten cornets close at hand . . .

And as you may remember, Professor Harold Hill, in "The Music Man," is a scam artist: Anarcho Capitalism. The town council members are naïve idiots: Government. But the folks are people you would like living in your ideal home town. Now a person might argue that the scam artist is less of a problem than government encroachment. On the other hand a LOSS of government as in a major catastrophe can lead to a desolate landscape full of murder and theft. How would that Iowan towns people react if the town council and the sheriff disappeared? Would they adjust to it, but remain decent folk? For how long? Weeks? Years? Centuries?

What if Clem, right on the streets of River City is whipping his horse? What if he beats his kids on Main Street with a belt? What if Clem pees in the reservoir? Thomas, and all of you decent people, do you think River City would REMAIN a good place without a sheriff, and human rights guaranteed in a constitution?

I guess this is where it gets really (and I mean very) hard to explain my exact thinking. I am still struggling to put it down on paper for my own sake in any spare time I get. My ideas are slightly different from most anarcho-capitalists I have yet to encounter. I don't think there is any way so far today to produce a lasting anarcho-capitalism.

It is theoretically possible to achieve it momentarily, but that doesn't exactly make me want to get rid of the state right now as you might see. The question is what it would take to produce an enviroment where anarcho-capitalism would be enough of an obvious choice for how we conduct society. I don't have any exact answers and I don't pretend to. When there is an "objectivist" laissez-faire government, we might know more.

My primary argument for anarcho-capitalism remains the moral. If we want to take another example from Rand her self, it should be obvious for anyone who read Atlas Shrugged (not really a favourite of mine) that Galt's Gulch was in direct defiance of the socialist government. But we don't need to.

[Selene]

What if Clem, right on the streets of River City is whipping his horse? What if he beats his kids on Main Street with a belt? What if Clem pees in the reservoir? Thomas, and all of you decent people, do you think River City would REMAIN a good place without a sheriff, and human rights guaranteed in a constitution?

I guess this is where it gets really (and I mean very) hard to explain my exact thinking. I am still struggling to put it down on paper for my own sake in any spare time I get. My ideas are slightly different from most anarcho-capitalists I have yet to encounter. I don't think there is any way so far today to produce a lasting anarcho-capitalism.

Welcome to OL...are you a student, business person, or, worker?

It may be an assumptive problem that you're creating about framing it as a "lasting" anarcho-capitalism.

By the very nature of groups of folks banding together in reality implies a changing dynamic.

Nothing lasts forever.

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

What if Clem, right on the streets of River City is whipping his horse? What if he beats his kids on Main Street with a belt? What if Clem pees in the reservoir? Thomas, and all of you decent people, do you think River City would REMAIN a good place without a sheriff, and human rights guaranteed in a constitution?

 

I guess this is where it gets really (and I mean very) hard to explain my exact thinking. I am still struggling to put it down on paper for my own sake in any spare time I get. My ideas are slightly different from most anarcho-capitalists I have yet to encounter. I don't think there is any way so far today to produce a lasting anarcho-capitalism.

 

Don't worry about it. US constitution didn't last long (1790-1860). If the only way to stop Clem peeing in the reservoir or whipping his horse is to wait for the sheriff to intervene, there's going to be more anarchy than you can shake a stray gangbanger at. Have you been to Detroit recently? -- or Los Angeles?  TSA can't find weapons 3 out of 4 times

 

There's no guarantee of 'human rights.' When seconds count, the police are only an hour away, unless they're outnumbered or told to stand down.

 

[Selene]

Which one is the three year old orphan that O'bama said we are afraid of again?

A...

[anthony]

Because I probably don't understand it fully, I am flummoxed by debates on anarcho-capitalism versus the Randian model. I think that one fallacy is in expecting and desiring a 'perfect' Government, failing which, one which can be arbitrarily changed or "competed" with. I'm opposed to the unreal idea of societal perfectionism (other than an individual's striving to it).

It (surely) must be that a nation which arrives at full laissez-faire and individual rights, first presupposes a majority of morally selfish, self-sufficient, self-responsible and consentual citizens who are fully convinced of the necessity of a limited government to their freedom, thriving and wealth. Then, the benefits of that existing culture, when observed in action, will further create in many others the similar conviction, sustainable to future generations I am certain.

In other words, the government should then have less to do, since force and fraud from an instigator on another person would decrease and individuals would more often work out differences between themselves as rational men and women. And it is in their self-interest to do so. For the remainder of life's happenstance, our existence will never become risk free. 'Perfect' pre-emptive protection and retaliation, every second - if it were possible - demands a police State, and bang goes our freedom.

As I said, I probably don't understand the problem.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Because I probably don't understand it fully, I am flummoxed by debates on anarcho-capitalism versus the Randian model.

Oh. It's pretty easy to explain. Rand, Branden, Nozick, Hospers and all other respectable people advocate limited government that strives to uphold and defend individual rights. Not exactly a new idea. Rothbard suggested private security companies and arbitration, both which are quite common in the U.S. We have twice as many private security guards than "sworn" law enforcement officers. Almost all U.S. credit card and utility agreements stipulate arbitration.

Nothing else to discuss, is there?

[Selene]

Because I probably don't understand it fully, I am flummoxed by debates on anarcho-capitalism versus the Randian model.

Oh. It's pretty easy to explain. Rand, Branden, Nozick, Hospers and all other respectable people advocate limited government that strives to uphold and defend individual rights. Not exactly a new idea. Rothbard suggested private security companies and arbitration, both which are quite common in the U.S. We have twice as many private security guards than "sworn" law enforcement officers. Almost all U.S. credit card and utility agreements stipulate arbitration.

Nothing else to discuss, is there?

And the dirty little secret that under 10% of matters actually get to trial:

1) settlement conferences;

2) voluntary, contractual and Court mandated arbitrations;

3) mediation programs, both Court directed and voluntary;

4) plea bargaining; and

5) the American Arbitration Association.

So, if we all had half of a rational mind, we would reduce a dispute to pure business and strip it of the emotional prompts that prolong litigation.

You know, like in the perfect world of Atlas.

A...

[George H. Smith]

Because I probably don't understand it fully, I am flummoxed by debates on anarcho-capitalism versus the Randian model.

Oh. It's pretty easy to explain. Rand, Branden, Nozick, Hospers and all other respectable people advocate limited government that strives to uphold and defend individual rights. Not exactly a new idea. Rothbard suggested private security companies and arbitration, both which are quite common in the U.S. We have twice as many private security guards than "sworn" law enforcement officers. Almost all U.S. credit card and utility agreements stipulate arbitration.

Nothing else to discuss, is there?

If you really think that private security companies and private arbitration of contract disputes are relevant in any fundamental sense to the anarchist/minarchist controversy, then you don't have a clue of what that debate is about.

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

If you really think that private security companies and private arbitration of contract disputes are relevant in any fundamental sense to the anarchist/minarchist controversy, then you don't have a clue of what that debate is about.

I was speaking about Rothbard. "In his anarcho-capitalist model, protection agencies compete in a free market and are voluntarily supported by consumers who choose to use their protective and judicial services." [Wikipedia]

Of course, you're so much smarter than me, George. Why don't you explain it to Tony?

[Brant Gaede]

The minarchist unsuccessfully objects to the logic of the anarchist position. That's because the minarchist can't get away from government's dirty feet and will not honestly embrace government. The minarchist is dishonest theorectical purity and the anarchist honest theorectical purity.

The real problem, though, is purity, perfection and Utopia. Humanity ain't going there. It's just a never-ending road to travel to greater freedom. That's what it's really all about.

--Brant

you can't put much good into government without putting in the fear of God--metamorphically speaking

[Brant Gaede]

If you really think that private security companies and private arbitration of contract disputes are relevant in any fundamental sense to the anarchist/minarchist controversy, then you don't have a clue of what that debate is about.

I was speaking about Rothbard. "In his anarcho-capitalist model, protection agencies compete in a free market and are voluntarily supported by consumers who choose to use their protective and judicial services." [Wikipedia]

Well, that's not fundamental.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

If you really think that private security companies and private arbitration of contract disputes are relevant in any fundamental sense to the anarchist/minarchist controversy, then you don't have a clue of what that debate is about.

I was speaking about Rothbard. "In his anarcho-capitalist model, protection agencies compete in a free market and are voluntarily supported by consumers who choose to use their protective and judicial services." [Wikipedia]

Well, that's not fundamental.

Oh. Okay. What is fundamental to anarcho-capitalism, Brant?

[Brant Gaede]

If you really think that private security companies and private arbitration of contract disputes are relevant in any fundamental sense to the anarchist/minarchist controversy, then you don't have a clue of what that debate is about.

I was speaking about Rothbard. "In his anarcho-capitalist model, protection agencies compete in a free market and are voluntarily supported by consumers who choose to use their protective and judicial services." [Wikipedia]

Well, that's not fundamental.

Oh. Okay. What is fundamental to anarcho-capitalism, Brant?

Utopia.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Utopia?

Well, that just goes to show how screwed up Wikipedia is. Doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism at all.

Chronologically, the first recorded utopian proposal is Plato's Republic. Part conversation, part fictional depiction, and part policy proposal, it proposes a categorization of citizens into a rigid class structure of "golden," "silver," "bronze" and "iron" socioeconomic classes. The golden citizens are trained in a rigorous 50-year-long educational program to be benign oligarchs, the "philosopher-kings"...

Ecological utopian society describes new ways in which society should relate to nature. They react to a perceived widening gap between the modern Western way of living that, allegedly, destroys nature[4] and a more traditional way of living before industrialization, that is regarded by the ecologists to be more in harmony with nature...

Particularly in the early 19th century, several utopian ideas arose, often in response to their belief that social disruption was created and caused by the development of commercialism and capitalism. These are often grouped in a greater "utopian socialist" movement, due to their shared characteristics: an egalitarian distribution of goods, frequently with the total abolition of money, and citizens only doing work which they enjoy and which is for the common good...

A global utopia of world peace is often seen as one of the possible end results of world history. Within the localized political structures or spheres it presents, "polyculturalism" is the model-based adaptation of possible interactions with different cultures and identities in accordance with the principles of participatory society...

The colonies of Carolina (founded in 1670), Pennsylvania (founded in 1681), and Georgia (founded in 1733) were the only three English colonies in America that were planned as utopian societies with an integrated physical, economic, and social design. At the heart of the plan for Georgia was a concept of “agrarian equality” in which land was allocated equally and additional land acquisition through purchase or inheritance was prohibited; the plan was an early step toward the yeoman republic later envisioned by Thomas Jefferson...

The communes of the 1960s in the United States were often an attempt to greatly improve the way humans live together in communities. The back to the land movements and hippies inspired many to try to live in peace and harmony...

The inter-religious utopia is similar to multiculturalism which can be taken as a networking example of where real world cultures have successfully worked together to create a wider society based on shared values. The ideology of God and religion used in inter-religious utopia is commonly stated by many people as their view of God. In more extended theories it goes up to the level of different religious leaders setting aside their differences and accepting harmony, peace and understanding to unite all religions within one another, thereby forming a utopian religion...

The Jewish, Christian, and Islamic ideas of the Garden of Eden and of Heaven/Paradise may be interpreted as forms of utopianism... They postulate freedom from sin, pain, poverty, and death; and often assume communion with beings such as angels or the houri. In a similar sense, the Hindu concept of moksha and the Buddhist concept of nirvana may be thought of as a kind of utopia. However, in Hinduism or Buddhism, utopia is not a place but a state of mind. a belief that if one is able to practice meditation without continuous stream of thoughts, one is able to reach enlightenment...

In the United States and Europe during the Second Great Awakening (ca. 1790–1840) and thereafter, many radical religious groups formed utopian societies in which faith could govern all aspects of members' lives. These utopian societies included the Shakers, who originated in England in the 18th century and arrived in America in 1774. A number of religious utopian societies from Europe came to the United States from the 18th century throughout the 19th century, including the Society of the Woman in the Wilderness led by Johannes Kelpius (1667–1708), the Ephrata Cloister (established in 1732), and the Harmony Society, among others. The Harmony Society was a Christian theosophy and pietist group founded in Iptingen, Germany, in 1785. Due to religious persecution by the Lutheran Church and the government in Württemberg, the society moved to the United States on October 7, 1803, settled in Pennsylvania, and on February 15, 1805, they, together with about 400 followers, formally organized the Harmony Society, placing all their goods in common. The group lasted until 1905, making it one of the longest-running financially successful communes in American history. The Oneida Community, founded by John Humphrey Noyes in Oneida, New York, was a utopian religious commune that lasted from 1848 to 1881. Although this utopian experiment has become better known today for its manufacture of Oneida silverware, it was one of the longest-running communes in American history. The Amana Colonies were communal settlements in Iowa, started by radical German pietists, which lasted from 1855 to 1932. The Amana Corporation, manufacturer of refrigerators and household appliances, was originally started by the group...

Scientific and technological utopias are set in the future, when it is believed that advanced science and technology will allow utopian living standards; for example, the absence of death and suffering... Other examples include a society where humans have struck a balance with technology and it is merely used to enhance the human living condition (e.g. Star Trek). In place of the static perfection of a utopia, libertarian transhumanists envision an "extropia", an open, evolving society allowing individuals and voluntary groupings to form the institutions and social forms they prefer...

In science fiction and technological speculation, gender can be challenged on the biological as well as the social level. In Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time, the utopian future offers equality between the genders and complete equality in sexuality... William Marston's Wonder Woman comics of the 1940s featured Paradise Island, a matriarchal all-female community of peace, loving submission, bondage, and giant space kangaroos... Many feminist utopias pondering separatism were written in the 1970s, as a response to the Lesbian separatist movement...

In many cultures, societies, and religions, there is some myth or memory of a distant past when humankind lived in a primitive and simple state, but at the same time one of perfect happiness and fulfillment. In those days, the various myths tell us, there was an instinctive harmony between humanity and nature. People's needs were few and their desires limited. Both were easily satisfied by the abundance provided by nature. Accordingly, there were no motives whatsoever for war or oppression. Nor was there any need for hard and painful work. Humans were simple and pious, and felt themselves close to the gods.

[George H. Smith]

If you really think that private security companies and private arbitration of contract disputes are relevant in any fundamental sense to the anarchist/minarchist controversy, then you don't have a clue of what that debate is about.

I was speaking about Rothbard. "In his anarcho-capitalist model, protection agencies compete in a free market and are voluntarily supported by consumers who choose to use their protective and judicial services." [Wikipedia]

Of course, you're so much smarter than me, George. Why don't you explain it to Tony?

By "protection agencies," Rothbard didn't merely mean private arbitration agencies designed to resolve contract disputes. More importantly, he meant criminal courts of justice that deal with theft, murder, etc. Rothbard's position, which was not original with him, has commonly been dubbed "legal pluralism." Rothbard's anarchism entails a denial of the legal sovereignty of a state. Contrary to Rand and other minarchists, he did not believe that the state has the right to claim a monopoly of law in a given society. Thus, even if you were "speaking of Rothbard," you could scarcely be more mistaken. If all that was involved in Rothbard's anarchism was the legitimacy of private arbitration agencies, then scarcely anyone would disagree with him.

For some basics and my own take on the minarchist/anarchist controversy, see my article "In Defense of Rational Anarchism." This article was compiled by someone else from a lengthy online written debate in 1999, so later parts of my essay, in the absence of the comments to which I was responding, may not be entirely clear.

http://www.anthonyflood.com/smithrationalanarchism.htm

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

Kind of a shame you got left out of Wikipedia's polycentric law article, George.

Also evident you have trouble reading --

"In [Rothbard's] anarcho-capitalist model, protection agencies compete in a free market and are voluntarily supported by consumers who choose to use their protective and judicial services." [Wikipedia]

[George H. Smith]

Kind of a shame you got left out of Wikipedia's polycentric law article, George.

Also evident you have trouble reading --

"In [Rothbard's] anarcho-capitalist model, protection agencies compete in a free market and are voluntarily supported by consumers who choose to use their protective and judicial services." [Wikipedia]

You said that in your original post you were "speaking about Rothbard." But that post misrepresented his position. If even the Wiki quote didn't support your misinterpretation, then that was your problem, not mine.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Kind of a shame you got left out of Wikipedia's polycentric law article, George.

You seem fixated on Wiki as a source to a degree that I fail to understand. But, yes, two of my articles (1979) probably should have been cited, given their influence on a number of prominent libertarian intellectuals: Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market ; and Justice Entrepreneurship Revisited: A Reply to Critics . The latter article converted Randy Barnett to my position, as he discussed in an article in the Harvard Law Review and in his book The Structure of Liberty.

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

prominent libertarian intellectuals

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf, you seem to be mostly concerned with structure rather than its underlying philosophy. The philosophy seems to crawl out from under the building such as "The armed defense of innocent liberty." It's hard to tell a story that way or get people interested in what that story might be.

By way of illustration, the Constitution of the United States is first a structure and secondarily implies philosophy. (That wasn't good enough for many so a Bill of Rights was tacked on.) In contradistinction, The Declaration of Independence is all about story, dramatically and literarily served up for peasant and King and everyone in between.

--Brant

shame on you for that rude Wikipedia dump on my (own rude?) "Utopia" stump(ed you?)

[Brant Gaede]

Doesn't "liberty" (France) serve anarchy better than "freedom" (The United States) which serves government?

The American Revolution helped bankrupt France which unleashed "liberty" (The Reign of Terror) snuffed out by Napoleon who turned Europe into a war zone not seen again for over a hundred years except for the industrial war side show of the American Civil War.

So, are not libertarians in the business of mixing up both ways--cultural and intellectual--then using an ideological centrifuge to spin government out of the equation?

Why don't the masses respond?

Will this stop the resurrection of Napoleon?

What do the Reign of Terror and totalitarian communism and Nazism have in common?

Clearing the way for their Utopias through ideologically braced moral force expressed physically and in the last century in end-game genocide.

(Objectivism is the atheist way of spiking this secular nonsense. Call it a work not yet working too well. Remains to be seen. In the meantime the conservatives will continue to haul in "God" for their side. The problem with that is it becomes my God vs. your God [and the other guy's God] and we get religious warfare.)

A protect human rights government means a bunch of people kick out the governing thugs and put in their own bully boys to keep the other guys from coming back--existentially with naked power and from within with political monopoly on the idea of necessity for social harmony so hoi polloi can make love and money and let the good times roll.

--Brant

hey, anarchists!--WTF is wrong with making love?

thus the anarchists crash and burn torn down by practical reality and drowned in the flood of philosophically insensate humanity imploded on Utopia and skewered for the barbeque over the hot coals of metaphor

[Wolf DeVoon]

Brant,

There are two separate and unrelated disciplines involved. The Declaration of Independence, however inspiring, was not law and is not law today. All the philosophy in the world can't change the science of medicine or what doctors do. Nothing utopian about law or medicine. Practitioners address factual matters, not abstract principles, and they serve clients, not society or debatable "man qua man." Lawyers and doctors earn money winning cases and curing patients. It's work for hire. They have a (legal) duty of reasonable care and confidentiality. The goal is to defend and patch up a client, notwithstanding the fact that he might be an asshole or an axe murderer. As a matter of professional interest and curiosity (not "human rights") they help everybody in trouble and keep the lights on by doing simple routine procedures like drafting wills and managing diabetes. Professionals are specialized. Not everyone does brain surgery or appellate practice. None of this has anything to do with government as such, unless it's a national emergency and they contribute knowledge and skills as experienced practical men who know what most people need and want.

Libertarian intellectuals are irrelevant in most people's lives. Lawyers and doctors gave you the Constitution.

[Brant Gaede]

I thought I said all that.

--chagrined, a failure, depressed ~sob~