2. Why, at the beginning of society, did emerge proto-state governed arrangements instead of something akin to anarcho-capitalism?
3. Why are governments omni-present in every single society but haven't there ever existed a sustained case of anarcho-capitalism?
4. Does have anarcho-capitalism to be triggered through legal reforms, an anarcho-capitalist revolution, or should we just wait for it to spontaneously happen?
5. What, in case of anarcho-capitalism being attained, would prevent from state to emerge once again?
6. Is not the one logical fate of an anarcho-capitalist society that one particular firm of services or police begins to gain power, being by that very feature more demanded so increasing its power, until it becomes alone, turning itself in a usual government?
5 comments:
1. I do not believe that a group of people should try to organize society and institutions by forcing people to adopt them, therefore I am not a constructivist.
2. Leaders are needed in a small hunter gatherer community, they arbitrate disputes and take decisions needed for the cooperation of the group (there is not a wide market). As larger societies develop, war is used to capture goods and slaves. The societies merge and the victors form a ruling caste.
3. There have been cases, the most famous being Medieval Iceland. Governments exist because it's profitable to be part of a government. We have kept an evolutionary belief in the need of leaders because of the considerable amount of time our specie spent as hunter gatherer, this makes it less costly for a government to rule a population.
Aggression / defense asymmetry in technology matters. The period of the American revolution had a much better balance than now. The balance was pretty poor in primitive society.
4. It doesn't have to. It could happen through each of these channels.
5. The same thing which makes anarcho-capitalism hard to reach, preference for status quo. Social orders have strong hysteresis effects.
6. Only one way to know, nothing to lose. Note however that there are more private cops than public cops in the US, yet you don't see them trying to overthrow the government.
Arthur B.:
I have some further questions for you:
1. Yo say that, as an anarcho-capitalist, you aren't a constructivist but you also agree in anarcho-capitalism being achieved through a revolution. Isn't any revolution necessarily fed by constructivistic avidity?
2. From your assertion that "it's profitable to be part of a government", can we conclude that incentives are always given for a government to sustain but not for an anarcho-capitalistic society, turning the latter in a mere utopia?
3. You say that there's nothing to lose in trying anarcho-capitalism. Is this true even in the case of a sort of "anarcho-capitalistic revolution" which you aprove?
4. You say that private cops, even being more than public ones, haven't tried to overthrow government. I guess you are talking about America (nevertheless here in Costa Rica is quite the same). So, are you including the army in the analysis? Haven't private cops trying to overthrow government "yet"?
Otherwise, your ideas particularly on aggression/defense asymetry, sustaninability of anarchocapitalism via status quo, and flourishing of private cops seem very interesting to me.
1) First of all, I said anarcho-capitalism could happen as a result of a revolution, it doesn't mean I think this is the most likely or desirable way to see it happening. Besides, constructivism is not merely the desire to see society move to a specific point, it is the illusion that this can be achieved through social engineering. A revolution is not exactly social engineering, it is the violent overthrow of existing institutions. A revolution is an abrupt social change but it is an organic social change, however revolution are often associated with coups which are not. The Federalist coup after the American Revolution, the French Terreur are examples.
2) No. It could be that being part of government is favorable only if there is a government. Most people with high government jobs are highly intelligent and they would probably be wealthier in a governmentless capitalist society, however, given government, it is their incentive to be part of it.
3) There are many risks associated with a revolution, I do not particulary favor this mode of social change. However historically it had some good results. The collapse the Berlin Wall is partly a revolutionnary movement. The outcome of a revolution depends heavily on the ideological background. If most people were anarcho-capitalists I trust a revolution would happen and would have positive results. I'm rather inclined towards secession as a way towards anarchy. This implie small localized revolutions.
4) There are plenty of mercenary in the US... you could argue that it's the balance of firepower that maintains the government in place but I sincerly doubt it. Most people have an interest in stability. In an anarchy, upsetting the order and trying to form a government is a pretty long shot. The government is very successful because most people regard it as legitimate, a private defense agency needs to do more than crush its competitors, it needs to pass as legitimate, that's much harder.
One of these days I was asked some very interesting additional questions for an anarcho-capitalist:
1. What happens if the firm which manages the jails, or that which protects you, etc. just goes bankrupt?
2. Current dealings among governments are costly. Doesn't give international law a counter-example of the eventual unpracticability of anarcho-capitalism?
3. Wouldn't market in an anarcho-capitalist society create commodities such as homicides, rapes, or armies against the firm which sells me protection?
In attention to past comments I'm not going to change the original entry. Nevertheless, given my current acceptance of the irrelevance of the term constructivism, I must say that I would rephrase the first question to Would you accept coercion to attain anarchocapitalism?
Post a Comment