Why I am not an ancap.

Tags: ancap money

Joseph Perrelli September 13, 2014 at 4:13 pm

There are 3 issues I have taken with the philosophy that no one has addressed

1st is worker protections it is a known fact that during the 1800s that most company’s found it cheaper to put down strikes violently than pay workers better and improve conditions. The most notable was the Carnegie steel strike what is going to prevent this? I have never seen this issue addressed.

2nd is company secrecy. It mostly applys to food and drugs but to other industry’s as well. Rather than letting the blame for a bad product fall on them they are going to want the plausible deniability that something went bad somewhere else in the chain such as poor storage in transit to the store. They will have no interest in a outside agency coming in and poking around if they can avoid it.

3rd is something I have heard around to the effect to the more forms of money the better. this makes it possible for a company to pay its workers in something that is worthless everywhere other than company owned stores thus enslaving workers by not being able to leave for other work do to an inability to pay for anything anywhere else.

My solution to this is a reintroduction of unions. Not the state backed powerhouses we see today but simple negotiators of work contracts. I feel this solves all 3 issues. Worker protection is self explanatory and workers have an interest in keeping a good reputation in order to get more work so mandating proper labeling and testing is a logical part of the contract it also ensures the workers are payed in something they can use. However I do not feel that unions are part of the ancap philosophy. Identify as a mutualist because I feel it solves these issues however correct me if I am wrong and talk about solutions to these issues.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sean Ridlon September 13, 2014 at 5:31 pm

First off, unions etc. have been addressed by authors before.Im thinking of Walter Block’s “Defending the Undefendables” chapter on strike-breakers at least as it’s a book I have on the shelf.

I think I’d like to hear more about how unions might operate outside of statism. That’d be an interesting topic. I think some unions might be well thought of, even in an an-cap situation due to their training and expertise. So I wouldn’t think that Unions would disappear in an-cap situations. Some might morph a bit- I could imagine a successful Pipefitters union could start a system of 6-12 grade schools for children with aptitude in plumbing etc while offering scholarships to promising students and “legacy” children of their membership. At the same time, I imagine that the teacher’s unions would pretty much fail without governments forcing people to attend their failing schools. So anyhow, as an an-cap I don’t have an issue with unions at all.

I guess I’ll try to give my opinion on your other points as well.

Situation 1: What is a “strike”? Is it persons unwilling to satisfy the condition of their employment while bodily preventing those persons who are willing from doing so? Are they on private property? Do they feel that they “own” the job and that no one else may do it? Walk-offs, publicity campaigns, etc are fine and I don’t believe that any non-violent strike like a walk-off or the others I mention has resulted in shootings.

Situation 2: already happens, might get better or worse in an-cap but I’m not sure if I could be convinced unions have anything to do with product safety or consumer protection. Consumer Reports, the BBB, and Underwriters Laboratories are just three examples of far more effective free market consumer protection agencies.

Situation 3: are you making a case here to intervene in voluntarily agreed upon contracts for employment between two parties other than yourself? Are you also making a case for government issued currency which must be accepted within its jurisdiction upon threat of violence or confiscation? What about states under union political control where nonunion persons are prevented from working for willing employers? Are you fine with that? What about how unions have forced prevailing wage legislation in order to remove the competitive edge from minority owned businesses and nonunion firms?

I don’t have a problem with unions, but I dispute the spin. Worker deaths were already on the steady decline before OSHA and unionism. Insurance suites brought against companies for wrongful death and injury raised the cost of employer negligence and still have much to do with it today. If what you think is true, than why is the decline in deaths and injury from then to now relatively uniform across geographical areas and trades with a marginal to nonexistent union activity? How has wealth, workplace safety, and a middle class improved in emerging and developing economies where unions are totally unheard of? This should be an easy one as it’s going on right before our eyes :). It’s capitalism. A rising tide lifts all ships.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Joseph Perrelli September 13, 2014 at 9:56 pm
  
  On your response to Situation 1. There needs to be a balancing force a capitalist society is controlled by those with capital as it suggests a countermeasure is needed to ensure continued input in to the market rather than a hoarding of wealth. Also there is nothing to stop the company from hiring another union to do work I am suggesting that unions compete over company’s and company’s over unions. This way no side has the upper hand as is our current system. By striking they are giving up there right to the work contract by not working for what has already been agreed upon for a set period of time so the company can hire another union to work in its place. Unions would function very differently from the way they do now without government backing.
  
  I don’t think there is much disagreement on 2 but the dynamic would change that much is certain.
  
  For situation 3 it is very likely money would mostly go back to precious metals for the most part quite simply because the more currency there are on the market the less each is worth and the less likely it is to be accepted, basic supply and demand. But the issue is there is a very easy exploit there. I also did not say what to do about it other than negotiate a contract in the 1st place.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Christopher Perlaky October 6, 2014 at 10:53 pm
    
    Capitalists do not hoard wealth. Hoarding is the act of removing a good from circulation and is to be distinguished from the act of saving in which capital is still available for circulation through the acts of lending and investment.
    
    Individuals, in a voluntary system, are compelled to contribute to the system based on immediate needs like food, shelter, and clothing that can’t otherwise be extorted through the political system.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Chip Marce September 13, 2014 at 6:54 pm

How is unionism relevant today when fewer and fewer people are in an employer/employee relationship at all? Kind of hard to organize a union when labor and management are the same person.

Personally, i think that self employment is the ideal that most liberty friendly folks will find to their best liking. That said, nothing that ive read in liberty theory conflicts with the idea of having a union and an extremely effective one at that. Free association and all.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Youliy Ninov September 14, 2014 at 4:09 pm

1st Issue:

Worker protection will be unnecessary because the market will take care of it. Nowadays people seem to need such a protection because they may loose their jobs and never find another one. But what if there is no joblessness? In pure capitalism this will be exactly the case. Basically, the employers will have a hard time finding workers. If you are not convinced then ask yourself why there are certain branches like IT for example, where the people are not even interested in job protection. No unions in general. And why have unions when one has become from the employer everything what is possible? Unionization applies mainly to state controlled fields like education.

2nd issue: company secrecy

Why do you think that the particular company will not be sued ? It should take the responsibility if it has caused damages, and if it does not want to do it willingly, it must be forced.

3rd issue:

As I said: No joblessness. What this means is that jobs will be abundant (contrary to the situation nowadays). If a company tries to cheat its workers in any way, then these workers will live it and go to other one. The company will go bust. When the boss is aware of this extremely likely possibility he will adjust. He may be a complete asshole, but the market will force him to behave properly, by punishing him for his bad behavior.

The general problem with the three issues is that you assume that the situation in pure capitalism will be the same as today.

It will not be.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Joseph Perrelli September 14, 2014 at 5:12 pm
  
  1. You are thinking way to highly of the system there is no such thing as perfection. There will be people who cant find jobs no matter what the system is and there will constently be jobs people would rather not do but do to survive. Your expectation is everyone will find what they are looking for. You are right there are jobs that wont need unions mostly these are already high paying low oversight. When was the last time you felt like your IT actually did something you couldn’t have looked up how to do on Google? I have a friend that did IT work he himself said that is basically the job or just stand around until the person figures out how to fix it on there own. Also you assumption that unions mostly apply to state jobs is false most service industry’s have unions or are trying to form them and most manufacturing jobs already have them. If requested I will list examples but to save on space I wont for now.
  
  2. This requires laws and government infrastructure to do. A lawsuit will not be viable in a post gov world.
  
  3. See 1.
  
  You assume perfection. There is no such thing.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
starrychloe September 14, 2014 at 11:35 pm
1. Who would work for a company that beats their employees? There is not a monopoly of employers. Employers compete for labor just as employees compete for wages. Here are 3 videos which explain:
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40&index=12
2. Most companies don’t want to kill their customers. People are willing to pay a premium for safe food. There are already private alternatives to the FDA:
  http://www.consumerlab.com/
  The FDA also kills people by NOT approving new drugs quickly enough.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvxT7fryE3Q&index=42
3. Who would work for worthless money? The US used to have over 8000 difference currencies, each issued by their own bank.
  http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/12/07/166747693/episode-421-the-birth-of-the-dollar-bill
Unions are fine, if you could get the workers to agree to join a union, and you could get the factory owners to agree to union contracts.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Joseph Perrelli September 15, 2014 at 1:55 am
  
  “Employers compete for labor just as employees compete for wages.” That is the mutualisum economic philosophy to my understanding. The gap that is in the ancap philosophy is how to promote this without government intervention.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Matt Gilliland October 17, 2014 at 2:11 pm
    
    No, that’s just basic economics. There’s nothing exclusively mutualistic about that. Employers today are competing to get the best workers, just as employees compete to get the best wages.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Properal October 17, 2014 at 5:45 pm
      
      I thought mutualist were against wage labor.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Youliy Ninov September 15, 2014 at 12:05 pm

“There will be people who cant find jobs no matter what the system is and there will constently be jobs people would rather not do but do to survive. Your expectation is everyone will find what they are looking for. ”

My expectation is that there will be jobs for everybody, but this does not mean that the jobs available will correspond to the wishes of the people and there is nothing strange in this. There were some jobs in the past which do not exist nowadays. Is is a problem?

In pure capitalism people will allways be able to find jobs. The only difference is for how much money. If you are irresponsible, do not appear regularly in office, take drugs, etc. you get some low quality job which pays only if you really produce something.

“When was the last time you felt like your IT actually did something you couldn’t have looked up how to do on Google?”

I am in IT and there are many things I can do which the non IT people can’t. It is the same with doctors, sportsmen, etc. They are specialists in some area.

“Also you assumption that unions mostly apply to state jobs is false most service industry’s have unions or are trying to form them and most manufacturing jobs already have them. If requested I will list examples but to save on space I wont for now.”

You are right. Let me be more precise: The jobs which are most regulated by law are extremely susceptible to unionization. It has to do with joblessness. Because they are regulated, such jobs are hard to find and if you get sacked you are out for a long time, possibly forever. So you try to stay in the game by pushing for laws, which regulate more, for instance, to make it harder for the employers to sack you. And once you can not be fired you can try to force them for more money. You unionize in order to accomplish this goals. An IT professional has options. If he is sacked he goes somewhere else, so not unions are necessary.
The difference between the IT and many other professions is that the regulation does not play a big role in IT and that is why ITs do not need unions.

“2. This requires laws and government infrastructure to do. A lawsuit will not be viable in a post gov world.”

Yes, it requires laws, but not a government. I am not an Anarcho-capitalist or Miniarchists. I believe that laws are possible to exist without a government. An example: Several land owners agree on a common set of laws which apply on their land. They have the right to create these laws, since the land is theirs. However these laws apply just on their piece of land. If someone disagrees, he is free to live the landowners property and live according to his wishes somewhere else. Such laws are created without compulsion (contrary to the situation nowadays). If you are interested, you can read my articles, where I try to make this more clear.

“3rd issue:”
Comment: People are (must be, but are not allowed to be) a very scarce resource. In order for a person to be able to work and produce stuff, he must be at least a teenager, that is his parents must have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to grow him/her up. If you want that the particular person be able to work something more complex you have to educate him. For the really complex stuff a university education is necessary. Under a free market (which the present one is only partially) this scarcity would show up and the price for labor would be high. At present regulations such as minimum wage, labor legislation, taxes, etc.make it impossible for the employers to employ everybody. If they had the chance, they would do so, but this option is not available.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Joseph Perrelli September 15, 2014 at 12:23 pm

For the most part I think you are just being to idealistic and I don’t think we are going to find common ground arguing about hypotheticals here. The only one i am going to respond to here is 2. That opens a huge can of worms that would bring this article off topic. Basically just one of the issues is if man from city A goes and commits a crime in city B and returns to city A what happens? City A police have an obligation to protect him if he pays and city B forces have an obligation to catch him. This creates even more messes than this but this is the largest.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Youliy Ninov September 15, 2014 at 12:33 pm

“For the most part I think you are just being to idealistic and I don’t think we are going to find common ground arguing about hypotheticals here.”

No problem whatsoever.

“Basically just one of the issues is if man from city A goes and commits a crime in city B and returns to city A what happens? City A police have an obligation to protect him if he pays and city B forces have an obligation to catch him. This creates even more messes than this but this is the largest.”

It seems to me that you are explaining the Anarcho-capitalistic problem of the opposing police forces. In the system I suggest (it is unlike Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism) this problem will not exist. And the reason is that the interests of the police forces will be aligned. In anarcho-capitalism the interests of the police forces are not aligned and this creates problems such as the above one. In short: In my system police feeds itself by fighting the crime directly,and not indirectly( it does not get paid from the people who suffer from the crime itself). So : this problem does not exist.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Joseph Perrelli September 15, 2014 at 12:44 pm
  
  As I said not going to go down the rabbit hole of this one. What we anarchist need is our own testing grounds. Something like the Bio-dome in Arizona or better yet an island. There is so much speculation not enough testing.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Dave Burns September 15, 2014 at 8:40 pm
    
    We are champions in armchairs.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Youliy Ninov September 15, 2014 at 2:06 pm

And the socialist needed and still need (!) their testing ground. If a system is logically not correct then many people will suffer. But you have right: the human kind tends to learn its lessons the hard way: by trial and error. In the meantime millions die, but hey, they are just people!
What will happen if you try your ideas (are you actually an anarcho-capitalist?) and fail? Are you going to take responsibility for the dead (they will be many)?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Joseph Perrelli September 15, 2014 at 2:45 pm
  
  On that we can agree. People can only learn new things by trial and error. We have gotten this far on it and we will continue to progress on it. So many political ideas sound good in theory but in practice are very harmful. The only way to weed these out is to keep trying new things to find what works and what doesn’t.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Youliy Ninov September 15, 2014 at 4:10 pm

OK. Suppose you get somehow you testing ground. However and unexpectedly for you you fail (the society crashes). Will you admit that you were wrong? The practice shows that people tend to cling to their ideas despite all the counter-evidence. That is why socialism is still alive. Most of the people would say: “Oh no, our ideas are correct, but they were not implemented faithfully”,or “Man is bad by birth and that is why our cherished ideas failed”. What I want to stress is that once you turn ideological it is unlikely that you will ever change your opinion. When you discuss an idea, the first thing you should look for is contradictions/inconsistencies, because if they are present then most likely your idea is wrong or just partially right. And I am telling you that the anarcho-capitalism has some inconsistencies (I admit, they are less than in Minarchism). Mises explained why the socialism would crash and it crashed for the same reason. He had good reasons, but did somebody listen to him? No. Everybody turned ideological. And millions of people died because they shared your opinion. ” We will do it because it is right!”

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Joseph Perrelli September 15, 2014 at 4:28 pm
  
  Ok I think we have started talking about 2 different things here. I am talking about some flaws in the an-cap philosophy. You are talking about how people tend to ignore things that don’t support there ideology.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Michael Bunch September 15, 2014 at 5:18 pm

You bring up fair points but I do think that these can be addressed in a voluntary society.
I – I can’t help but think, would people require force to be removed from an employer’s property for striking? Let’s say our workers are AnCaps. Would they violate the property of their former employer by refusing to leave? And if so, how does that make them better than common trespassers? I would imagine that AnCaps would simply know better and leave without violence.
II – It’s true that companies will be secretive whenever possible. But consumers, if free to do so, often demand quality control businesses. Think about AAA or businesses that exist simply to certify the quality of goods. I imagine that businesses would do a great deal to either not get caught or just deliver good quality products from the beginning, to protect themselves from low ratings and public boycotting.
III – But why would workers choose to work in a place that offered worthless money? If you’re stupid enough to do that, that’s your fault. Employees are responsible for asking for real money in a voluntary society, if their employers don’t automatically offer it themselves.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Joseph Perrelli September 15, 2014 at 7:43 pm
  
  I think that a general consensus has been reached about issues 2 and 3 so I am going to focus on the 1st one from this point on. As to your 1st point striking rarely involves actual occupation of the environment anymore mostly its just not showing up for work nowadays.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Michael Bunch September 15, 2014 at 8:47 pm
    
    Okay, sounds good. If striking is mostly focused on just not showing up for work, what’s to stop an employer from just firing you in a voluntary society? I mean, such a workplace would still involve contracts, right? If anything, perhaps we can expect more contracts in an AnCap workplace. If you agree to work X number of hours and you just don’t show up for a week, you probably won’t just have a job when you return. And indeed, what’s just stopping the AnCap employee by protesting via quitting and getting a job at a rival’s company, to the disadvantage of the original business?
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Joseph Perrelli September 15, 2014 at 10:37 pm
      
      Think I already went over this so I will just copy and paste it here.
      
      There is nothing to stop the company from hiring another union to do work I am suggesting that unions compete over company’s and company’s over unions. This way no side has the upper hand as is our current system. By striking they are giving up there right to the work contract by not working for what has already been agreed upon for a set period of time so the company can hire another union to work in its place. Unions would function very differently from the way they do now without government backing.
      
      The only thing I would add is that by striking the company would have to negotiate a new contract with a new union. So in some cases it would be better to work with the existing union but it would likely be rare.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Michael Bunch September 16, 2014 at 8:58 am

I think the simple elegance of AnCap is that many possibilities can occur. There’s nothing to stop companies from hiring competing unions or companies competing for unions. It’s not all that different from a company contracting with another company or anything like that. I guess the question is whether or not there would more incentive for companies to hire unions than individual groups. What would they offer? One thing that I think we can ponder is whether or not this could model a non-coercive version of the guild system from the Middle Ages, where unions act as a training groups and retain the highest performers to ensure quality for consumers.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Joseph Perrelli September 16, 2014 at 9:23 am
  
  I think you are not to far off from what I am trying to describe.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Michael Bunch September 16, 2014 at 10:09 am
    
    Can you describe your idea further? If you visualize it, how would it appear?
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Joseph Perrelli September 16, 2014 at 11:02 pm
      
      Lets say for example there are 6 food produces. There will be 6 unions to work for these producers. If a 7th company were to come about the best performing or largest union would have a cultural obligation to split in to 2 unions to maintain an equal number to the company’s.
      
      No union is locked to any one company as contracts end a union may chose to work for a more favorable company but a company may chose to hire a more favorable union. Thus no one has a upper hand in negotiations for work. In the event a contract can not be made with the last existing union and company a section of the union if it is willing to accept a proposed contract may break apart and take the contract. The last unhired union will devolve. This outcome is undesirable so it will generally make an agreement come about that both sides can live with as no one wants to be the last to be hired contracts remain fair and liveable but not overbearing.
      
      Theses contracts generally contain provisions for length of retainment if both ends hold up there ends of the contract. Both sides must agree to the following items. An expected pay range is set for workers over this time to maintain good work on the unions part and those within the union to work harder for better pay. The company sets work expectations of quality and quantity.
      
      The workers set safety rules for there own protection how they chose to be payed and how to regulate quality and effect of the product to not gain a reputation for bad work.
      
      If you feel I have left any issues out please let me know and I will fix it.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Michael Bunch September 17, 2014 at 5:22 pm
      
      That’s all well and good, but I’m confused as to the “why” still. What advantages would these unions have over other contractors or employees?
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Joseph Perrelli September 17, 2014 at 5:37 pm
      
      Quite simply better negotiating power the more product you have to offer (In this case work.) the better a deal you can get unions are basically contract negotiators without any government backing. Also an employer benefits from a large work contract from a union in the fact that it will maintain its own quality of work. The employer also becomes less responsible for the product should something go wrong by virtue of having a union that sets its own quality controls on top of the employers.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Stephen Davis September 16, 2014 at 11:38 am

Hi Joseph, I suggest that you search around a bit because these topics have been dealt with, in depth, by many authors. If your solution is voluntary negotiation of work contracts, well, that’s perfectly in line with anarcho-capitalism.

(1) Your history of the Carnegie steel strike is wrong. Union leaders basically took over the town, attacked non-union workers, censored the press, destroyed property, etc. Regardless, companies need to compete for employees.

(2) Companies certainly will have an interest in an outside agency coming in and poking around if their competitors do that in order to outcompete them.

(3) The point of a job is to make a living; it’s a means to an end. Why would anyone work for something worthless?

All of your criticisms boil down to a fundamental misunderstanding about business in a free market. Businesses need to serve consumers. They need to compete. If they don’t, they fail.

Here’s an article from Tom Woods about labor unions: http://mises.org/daily/1685/Forgotten-Facts-of-American-Labor-History

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Youliy Ninov September 16, 2014 at 2:00 pm

@Joseph Perrelli
OK. Here is the basic flaw with Anarcho-capitalism (I am copying my opinion from a comment under my papers):
========================
You made me thinking. And I concluded that you are right. Actually, in Ancapistan I am strictly speaking not forced to do anything. However this has consequences and the most important one is that in Anarcho-capitalism violence IS ALLOWED. They say that they are against the violence as such but in practice they are not. For instance: Somebody comes to kill me. If I defend myself, then not problem exist. However: I am not forced to do it and nobody protects me. I can choose not to defend myself and I die. And society is OK with this. So, in Anarcho-capitalism violence can exist freely and is allowed. Basically they condone violence. What is not banned is allowed.
I am changing my opinion. Minarchism is more consistent than Anarcho-capitalism. At least with Minarchism violence is generally outlawed, although still allowed for the purpose of collecting taxes.
Typically the terms “anarchy” and ” chaos” are not synonyms. However in the case of the Anarcho-capitalism they seem to be synonymous. A system in which violence is allowed can not function. It is chaotic.

So: In Minarchism the violence is officially allowed for the purpose of collecting taxes and in Anarcho-capitalism violence is unofficially allowed generally. Just in my system violence is officially and unofficially disallowed. So to answer you statement, namely :”It is not a third way, it is a strategy for funding law enforcement, one that could be used with any system.”

It is actually a third way because it is fundamentally different.
I am thinking of calling my system Voluntarism. The term exists, but I believe I can differentiate it, hijack it for my own purposes.
==========================================================================================

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Joseph Perrelli September 16, 2014 at 2:26 pm
  
  Dude you have now totally lost me. I have no idea what you are trying to get at.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Stephen Davis September 16, 2014 at 2:33 pm

Youliy, if “anarcho-capitalism” is understood to mean “free-market anarchy” or “anarcho-libertarianism,” then that is synonymous with “voluntaryism” or “voluntarism” (see Auberon Herbert, George H. Smith, Wendy McElroy, Carl Watner).

Your example is simply of a pacifist choosing not to assert their right to self-defense. That could exist under any system. That in no way means that “violence is allowed,” although, technically speaking, anarcho-libertarianism allows for violence, but not aggression. Killing is not necessarily wrong because you can kill in self defense. Murder, on the other hand, is always wrong.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  
  Youliy Ninov September 17, 2014 at 3:07 pm
  
  Thanks Stephen. I know what voluntarism means. However as I have already said I intend to hijack the term, change its meaning somehow and generally use it for my purposes. Are you against a free market fight for the definition of a meaning of a term?
  
  “Your example is simply of a pacifist choosing not to assert their right to self-defense. That could exist under any system.”
  
  It can exist under any system but only under Anarcho-capitalism it will not be punished (even an attempt will not be made).
  
  “That in no way means that “violence is allowed,” although, technically speaking, anarcho-libertarianism allows for violence, but not aggression.”
  
  When violence is not punishable then it is allowed. Is this not so?
  
  “Killing is not necessarily wrong because you can kill in self defense. Murder, on the other hand, is always wrong.”
  
  Exactly, and the situation I discuss is exactly murder. But many other examples can be created. Another problem is that the interests of the police groups are not aligned and they can clash. Under my system, when police funds itself from crime directly the interests are aligned and no problems can exist. Basically police forces under Anarchism are not market based, they are “pseudo” market based. An example: In the free market exist the so-called market monopoly. This happens when a company is so much better than its rivals that it takes the whole market and there is nothing wrong with it, since people get very good and cheap services. Such a situation can potentially exist in all branches of the market economy, although is not very probable. However this situation can not exist with the police in Anarcho-capitalism. A single police force can not protect people who fight against each other at the same time. Another known problem is that how much protection one gets will depend on how much one can pay. One can not avoid this when people pay directly the police. So basically the right will go to the strongest. Which means that some people will be almost “above the law”.Wild wild west, i.e. chaos. In my system this can not happen, because the police will not be paid from the general population but from the acts of crime. So it will not matter who you are, how much money you have. The police will view all the criminals as a potential loot, a walking pot of gold so to say. Another problem: in Ancapistan the police size will be determined subjectively ( the people will have to decide how much police protection they need), but in my system the police size and organization will be determined objectively, i.e. it will correspond to the crime extent itself, and not to the perceived “crime”.
  
  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
  - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    
    Stephen Davis September 17, 2014 at 3:26 pm
    
    You didn’t expand on how you would hijack the term. Go for it.
    
    Who said that someone murdering a pacifist wouldn’t be punished under anarcho-capitalism? What if the family members of the pacifist want compensation? Do you think anyone would have a problem with, say, the murderer being made to serve the family for a period of time or life? What if a family member of the pacifist flies off the handle and murders the murderer? Do you think that person will be viewed with the same scorn as the initial murderer? Do you think other people who know about the murderous actions will still choose to interact with the murderers as normal?
    
    The question is, when is force legally justified? Anarcho-capitalism says that force is only justified in response to initiated force.
    
    Again, there’s nothing wrong with violence, per se. Violence can be just. Initiated violence, however, is never just. And it is legally punishable under anarcho-capitalism.
    
    “Market monopolies” are a myth. I challenge you to find one example. See Rothbard on this. Where so-called monopolies have existed (defined by having some large percentage of market share, say, John D. Rockefeller, what happened? The price of oil was lowered dramatically. On the market, consumer needs must continually be met.
    
    As a side note, the “Wild West” wasn’t as wild as people generally think. It’s pretty interesting to look into.
    
    Check out Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “The Private Production of Defense.” (http://mises.ch/library/Hoppe_PrivateProductionOfDefense.pdf)
    
    Also, your claim about “objectivity” in order to determine policing is false. There is no possible way such a thing could be objective. Given the exact same amount of crime, exactly how to respond to that and what resources to deploy where is always subjective. The market mechanism is that scarce resources are directed by consumers.
    
    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Youliy Ninov September 17, 2014 at 4:55 pm
      
      “You didn’t expand on how you would hijack the term. Go for it.”
      
      You are welcome, but there is nothing special about it. You just try to push your definition for it publicly. If the society accepts it gradually, then you succeed if not you fail. No guarantee at all. That is what I mean.
      
      “Do you think anyone would have a problem with, say, the murderer being made to serve the family for a period of time or life? What if a family member of the pacifist flies off the handle and murders the murderer?”
      
      What you say is very likely. The problem is that it should not be allowed to happen. Because how do you guarantee that the family member is impartial? May be the case is not so clear as it seems. Should we allow a family member who grieves for the murdered relative to take the life of another person? If you do this, chaos may ensue. That is why judges are need, impartial judges. Courts do not exist in vain.
      
      “Anarcho-capitalism says that force is only justified in response to initiated force.”
      
      That is what they say and I agree. It is however not important what they say, but what the reality will be. Reality and good intentions/words are two different things.
      
      From the above statement it must follow that the initiation of force must be punished. But what happens when it is not? By the way, what exactly “is justified” mean? Does it mean (as you use it) that force MUST be applied or that force CAN be applied righteously (and it is up to you do decide whether to apply it or not)? I am curious what exactly the Ancaps mean by that.
      
      ““Market monopolies” are a myth. I challenge you to find one example.”
      
      The only example I am aware of is from the books of Ayn Rand. Sorry, but I am not a specialist on the matter and in addition I can not recall the name of the company. It dealt with aluminium production in America during her time. I would be glad however to hear arguments against market monopolies.
      
      “………The price of oil was lowered dramatically. On the market, consumer needs must continually be met.”
      
      I could not understand what exactly you want to say with the above.
      
      “Given the exact same amount of crime, exactly how to respond to that and what resources to deploy where is always subjective. The market mechanism is that scarce resources are directed by consumers.”
      
      Yes, the market mechanism directs the scarce resources according to the consumers wishes. And in my system the consumers who direct these resources are the criminals themselves, not the people who suffer from the criminal acts. So, if there are more criminals, the police will be bigger, exactly so big, that it can be supported from the existing crime. That is why I say “objective”. In the present system the size of the police is semi-randomly determined. In Anarcho-capitalism it will be defined by the subjective views of the people. So if somebody is murdered publicly, say on TV during prime time ,the police forces will have a big inflow of money, because their clients will request more policemen on the streets. However: the people do not really need these additional police forces because crime has not increased at all. It is just that one particular case from the crime statistics has become prominent. That is why in Anarcho-capitalism the size of the police will be determined subjectively. And that is why the scarce resources under my system will be used better and more effectively. I suggest you read my articles, because it is very likely that you do not understand exactly what I mean by “directed by criminals themselves”. If not, I am ready to explain if you are interested.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - Joseph Perrelli September 17, 2014 at 5:29 pm
      
      I have kept largely out of this but I have to say I think police simply wouldn’t exist. Police by there nature are a reactionary force. I think after a short time most people would opt to carry a firearm or other weapon. In the case of an escaped perpetrator bounty hunters will likely be hired by the victim or there family to track them down and bring them in for whatever system is decided on for trial and punishment. So I think arguing about police is a waste of time.
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    - David Montgomery October 17, 2014 at 11:44 pm
      
      Private guards of private property and private bodyguards already exist. I don’t see why there wouldn’t be subscription services for these things that would cover what today’s police are supposed to nominally do (serve and protect).
      
      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- - - - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Properal September 16, 2014 at 5:42 pm

I found some research papers on labor around the turn of the century.

The period from 1890 to 1930 was a period of labor unrest, which may seem to be prima fade evidence of problems in the labor markets at the time. Labor unrest was driven partly by economic insecurity, by some labor market failures, and partly by the legal treatment of unions at the time, which led workers to strike to force employers to recognize their demands for organization. Yet, even if labor markets had functioned perfectly smoothly, there still might have been labor unrest, as workers’ sought to expand their share of the economic pie at the expense of the returns to other factors of production. While neoclassical models imply that in a well-functioning economy workers will receive the value of their marginal product, rewards are also paid to the owners of other factors of production. Workers were not ideologically bound by neoclassical economic concepts in their determination of the fair distribution of rewards. They had every reason to subscribe instead to other economic models, like the labor theory of value. Thus, even if the labor market functioned smoothly in the neoclassical sense, workers would have still considered themselves ill-served by the payments they received.

…

What does the “unfettered” past teach us about the present’ Here is one interpretation of what the scholarship in economic history implies for the present. The markets today, if unregulated, probably would work better than in the early I 900s because information costs and mobility costs arc lower and the average person has more general human capital.

–Operations of “Unfettered” Labor Markets at the Turn of the Century by Price V. Fishback

Even in the company towns of the West Virginia mining industry that used script and had company stores employers were generally not able to push down wages:

…employer monopsony played at best only a small part in determining wages in turn-of-the-century coal mining. In contrast, real wage fluctuations over time, driven primarily by product demand shocks, show frequent movements of 20% or more over intervals of just a few years…

…

In summary, the econometric evidence indicates that West Virginia coal is not a good example of monopsony and that miners moved relatively quickly in response to wage differences across employers. Of course, a few individual employers in unusually remote locations may have enjoyed substantial monopsony power, but the econometric evidence shows that, on average, labor supply to individual employers must have been very elastic. In light of this evidence, the traditional view that company towns were a source of monopsony power must be reconsidered. In fact, the opposite may have been true.

–Testing for employer monopsony in turn-of-the-century coal mining by William M. Boal

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.