SandySandfort on November 22, 2010, 10:28:26 am
Now, if people read libertarian nor a market anarchist as I have suggestion, they will find explanations of why they have worked in the past and discussions of how they may work now and in the future.

Did you mean this to read something like:


Now, if people read libertarian nor a and/or market anarchist literature as I have suggestion, they will find explanations of why they have worked in the past and discussions of how they may work now and in the future.


Yeah, I corrected the wrong or/nor. Good pickup.

SandySandfort on November 22, 2010, 10:33:55 am
Doh! It was such a wretched day that I blanked out that I already answered this. Sorry for the revisit.

Now, if people read libertarian nor a market anarchist as I have suggestion, they will find explanations of why they have worked in the past and discussions of how they may work now and in the future.

Did you mean this to read something like:


Now, if people read libertarian nor a and/or market anarchist literature as I have suggestion, they will find explanations of why they have worked in the past and discussions of how they may work now and in the future.


Yeah, I corrected the wrong or/nor. Good pickup.

sams on November 25, 2010, 01:38:53 am
One point is that the various problems you suggest don't have to be perfectly solved. They only have to be palliated to the point that people can keep living in cities. Government coercion doesn't solve all those problems perfectly either.

No, but it solves some of them.  Without taxation, how are transportation networks built and maintained, or an energy grid developed, or other utilities that are vital to highly urbanized environments?

I come late to this topic, but if you go many African cities, in which the government is simply weak or more interested in racketing you at the harbour, you will see [1] Private power grids, [2] private schools, [3]private forms of distribution of water and extensive networks of business to distribute any kind of service you might imagine ... including Uber rich businessman going about asfalting his neighbourhood to show off.

Problem is that this stuff almost never scale up, not because people are dumb or ''poor'', but because there is a limit beyond which licence and butt kissing of bureaucracy ruin your day.

In short Urban setting are the best place to see anarchy

terry_freeman on November 26, 2010, 07:37:10 am
Private improvements don't "scale up" only because success draws attention from greedy government thieves.

Here is an interesting link: seven ways the Mafia improved America.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/russell-t2.1.1.html

It is particularly pertinent to the claim that an America without government would somehow be a more racist environment. Oddly enough, government-free zones treated jazz musicians much better than the more "respectable" establishments.

 

J Thomas on November 26, 2010, 09:28:27 am

It is particularly pertinent to the claim that an America without government would somehow be a more racist environment. Oddly enough, government-free zones treated jazz musicians much better than the more "respectable" establishments.

I'd argue they did that precisely because they were not respectable. The government sides with the respectable people because they have the clout -- if they didn't, they wouldn't have the clout to call the others disreputable. But people who want to be thought of as respectable still want to do illicit things with the unrespectable people, so there's a hidden market. Government makes the bad trade illegal because respectable people want it that way.

Without government, would there still be a respectable/disreputable split? If so, would the respectable people form vigilantes to enforce their will? If so -- after that double if -- I would expect the government side to be a bit better. Sometimes the respectable people would get the government to crack down on the unrespectable, and the government would do that somewhat slowly and ineffectively compare to private action. And sometimes the government would crack down on vigilantes somewhat slowly and ineffectively, and that would do some good too. As to which approach would encourage the respectable people and the unrespectable people to get along better over time, I couldn't say.

A truly AnCap society would not have vigilantes enforcing status. But if we started with what we've got now, and just got rid of the government, I think we would. In theory we would have armed disreputable people who could fight off vigilantes who tried to oppress them. But I remember the small town I grew up in. There was a moderate degree of racism toward blacks. The town had one gun-seller and he loudly claimed that he'd never sell a gun to a nigger. The white population was well-armed and considerably larger and richer than the black population. They had more access to guns, particularly to automatic weapons, and also more money to put into them. It never came to race riots, but if it had I think the blacks would have lost considerably more than the whites, other things equal. (One of the things that was not equal was that black teenagers were drafted out of their numbers to fight in Vietnam, and a couple of years later came home with training and experience.)

As it turned out, the larger government forced us to let blacks eat in white restaurants and go to the white schools, and people put up with it. We were less than 150 miles from DC, and after they burned down DC our newspaper congratulated everybody for not getting violent ourselves. I think what was going on was some people getting tolerant and deciding for themselves that everybody had to be tolerant, and the government somewhat slowly and ineffectively went along with it. But tolerance doesn't come from what people force you to do, it comes from within. It isn't a question of government or no government.

quadibloc on November 26, 2010, 12:13:52 pm
But tolerance doesn't come from what people force you to do, it comes from within. It isn't a question of government or no government.
I just want the black people to be able to eat at any restaurant they like, yesterday. For a value of yesterday that equals July 4, 1776 A.D.. If that takes Martians with ray guns enforcing their laws with a rod of iron, well, then, that's what it takes in order that freedom and justice may reign.

I don't care what aggressors think, I care what they do.

What's past is past, but I hear the Coptic Christians are having problems in Egypt.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2010, 04:27:07 pm by quadibloc »

jamesd on November 26, 2010, 12:39:19 pm
The government sides with the respectable people because they have the clout -- if they didn't, they wouldn't have the clout to call the others disreputable. But people who want to be thought of as respectable still want to do illicit things with the unrespectable people, so there's a hidden market. Government makes the bad trade illegal because respectable people want it that way.

Suppressing the disresputable is a public good problem, whether you are eradicating gypsies or imprisoning drug users.

In anarchy, public goods are under provided.

Without government, would there still be a respectable/disreputable split? If so, would the respectable people form vigilantes to enforce their will?

Probably, but such operations have to rely on charity and good intentions, so will be ill funded compared to such actions as taking care of burglars.

In order to suppress drugs, or exterminate Jews, you have to appeal to people's altruism and self sacrifice. People are very willing to be altruistic when they are voting, because they are mostly voting someone else's money. They are a lot more selfish when they are paying with their own money.

I will be willing to do what is necessary to obtain a defense contract that says that if I am robbed or murdered, I will be avenged. I will not be willing to do the same for a defense contract that says some stranger far away will be avenged, still less a defense contract that says some stranger far away will be punished for taking unapproved drugs.

In anarcho capitalism, private goods get supplied, because it is in the interest of particular people or small groups to supply them. For example there is usually someone who wants particular vengeance against a particular mugger. Public goods are under supplied, because although it might supposedly be in the interests of “everyone” that they be supplied it is not in the interest of any particular person or small group that they be supplied.

J Thomas on November 26, 2010, 09:25:18 pm
But tolerance doesn't come from what people force you to do, it comes from within. It isn't a question of government or no government.

I just want the black people to be able to eat at any restaurant they like, yesterday. ....

I don't care what aggressors think, I care what they do.

If you try to make people do things they hate to do, you're going to have a big effort forcing them. Much better if you can persuade them, then you don't have to force them. It might not be in the cards, but it's much better if it can be done.

I'm not clear which businesses should be forced to accept any paying customer whatsoever. Should prostitutes be required to accept anybody at all who can pay a standard fee? Lawyers? A lawyer should never be allowed to reject a case? Unskilled laborers? If anybody offers you a job you are required to take it? Should fancy french restaurants be required to accept any customer no matter how badly they are dressed? Should gun dealers be required to sell to anybody they are not forbidden to sell to? What about suspected suicide bombers? Should everybody have to do business with them? Or communists, or even anarchists!

I'm real murky about this sort of law. I can imagine that some businesses should be required to accept all customers, but which ones? What about the AnCap idea that if you get a bad reputation people will not want to do business with you? Should some people be allowed to do business only with those they choose?

I don't have it thought out. But if people somehow chose not to be racist, then we wouldn't have to worry about laws to force them to be civil to blacks.

terry_freeman on November 27, 2010, 12:30:40 am
As a counter to the story about a gun seller who "would never sell a gun to a nigger", consider two things.

First, consider that black people are disproportionately imprisoned for felonies, many of which are those illegal "disreputable" activities, such as possession of crack cocaine. The government thereby reduces the ability of black people to legally acquire weapons; it is heavily encouraging racism, even in this post-civil-rights era.

Second, read Negroes With Guns, an account of the Deacons For Defense. In those days, the KKK and the local police had overlapping membership. The same local police who would raid black homes by day and confiscate weapons would return at night wearing sheets to victimize the now-defenseless black people.

Robert Williams formed the Deacons for Defense, a non-government militia, which beat back the KKK - not by violent and bloody war, but by making it obvious that the cost of war would be too great for cowards who wear sheets and attack defenseless people.

In both of these situations, the government is advocating outcomes which are racist.

Lastly, the beauty of the free market is that it isn't terribly important if one gun seller "won't sell a gun to a nigger", so long as it is a free market. There's always another seller - who might even be a "straw man" buyer who buys from the racist, and turns around and re-sells to a new customer who happens to be black.


Bob G on November 27, 2010, 08:50:38 am
I just want the black people to be able to eat at any restaurant they like, yesterday. For a value of yesterday that equals July 4, 1776 A.D.. If that takes Martians with ray guns enforcing their laws with a rod of iron, well, then, that's what it takes in order that freedom and justice may reign.
So instead of government pointing guns at the heads of blacks and saying, "You can't eat here!", you prefer the government point guns at the heads of restaurant owners and saying, "You have to let blacks eat here!". Where's the 'freedom' in that?

Why not put the guns away?

If an old, retired Christian lady is trying to supplement her limited retirement income by leasing out some of the space in her house left after her spouse has died and her kids have left the nest,  will you point your gun at her head to make her rent to Satanists?
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

curthowland on November 27, 2010, 11:48:53 am
The funny thing about the "public goods" argument is that there's no basis for it.

Those that assert "public goods are under-provided" never support their assertion.

For example, the subways of NYC, an excellent example of a public good, were built privately.

Turnpikes, privately built. Steamship lines, privately built. Canals, railroads, the successful ones were built privately.

The ones that took govt money are the ones which went bankrupt. Many states went bankrupt building "internal improvements".

Scratch a problem, find the hand of government either making it worse, or causing the problem in the first place.

J Thomas on November 27, 2010, 12:18:56 pm

Lastly, the beauty of the free market is that it isn't terribly important if one gun seller "won't sell a gun to a nigger", so long as it is a free market. There's always another seller - who might even be a "straw man" buyer who buys from the racist, and turns around and re-sells to a new customer who happens to be black.

He was the only gun seller in town who had a store and advertised. But as you point out there's always some kind of black market, or another market. Or almost always. We were in driving distance of a collection of other towns and for that matter DC and Richmond.

It seems to me that it was important that there weren't nearly as many blacks, and they were poorer. So it's quite plausible that they would not be as well-armed. Black market guns are usually more expensive. And my guess is that they had fewer automatic weapons, what we called machine guns in those days. I only saw one through my high school years. A friend took one out of the trunk of their car, and his big brother told him to put it back, you don't show those things in public. I heard about five or six more.

In line with your story, our local police was 100% white and some of them talked racist.

As often happens, I was there and I do not know what really happened. There was hardly any violence, no more than you'd expect. The wife of the chief of police shot and killed him in a fight about his girlfriend. After a  year or so she got a $50,000 fine and probation. Etc. Was it that the blacks were armed well enough that whites were scared to attack them much, although they still had their own barber and their own motel and their own high school etc? Or was it that they were completely intimidated and scared to do anything toward integration until it got decided elsewhere, and the restaurants and motels etc caved in to the law?

Whatever was going on, we had a mostly seamless transition. I still don't know what's going on. I visited my old hometown with my daughters. We went to the park and they were ready to play with anybody. There was one part of the park that only blacks went to, and when they went there and I let them my father acted kind of bothered. People stared at us and we left. In the other part of the park they played with black kids and asian kids and one who was hispanic, and my father seemed a little concerned but not as much as before. Whatever covert racism might be going on would be hard to collect statistics on. It might be almost as important as the overt stuff we used to have, and someday it might break out in some big violence. But at least it isn't overt right now.

quadibloc on November 27, 2010, 03:40:42 pm
I just want the black people to be able to eat at any restaurant they like, yesterday. For a value of yesterday that equals July 4, 1776 A.D.. If that takes Martians with ray guns enforcing their laws with a rod of iron, well, then, that's what it takes in order that freedom and justice may reign.
So instead of government pointing guns at the heads of blacks and saying, "You can't eat here!", you prefer the government point guns at the heads of restaurant owners and saying, "You have to let blacks eat here!". Where's the 'freedom' in that?

Why not put the guns away?

If an old, retired Christian lady is trying to supplement her limited retirement income by leasing out some of the space in her house left after her spouse has died and her kids have left the nest,  will you point your gun at her head to make her rent to Satanists?
No to your last question. There should be limits which distinguish between major businesses and employers and minor ones.

But to your first question, the freedom in that is for the black people who are no longer victims of segregation. Segregation endured for decades - for generations. Had the U.S. Federal Government not abandoned Reconstruction so quickly, but kept at it until total equality between the races had been achieved, then Northern cities would not be suffering from the social problems associated with slums and inner cities. There would just be educated middle-class black people just like the educated middle-class white people, neither one getting into any trouble.

The presence in a society of a cohesive group of disaffected individuals, disaffected due to bad treatment or poverty, is an intolerable menace to national unity, social order, and tranquility. Hence, it must not be allowed to develop - it must be nipped in the bud the moment it starts to peek out.

Hence, if a business won't be profitable unless the workers are so badly underpaid they must live in tenements, or, worse yet, unless slaves are imported to run it - then, the government is expected, by having minimum wage laws, by having laws that protect trade unions, and so on, to ensure that we just do without that business. You can't have a Jeffersonian democracy if, instead of a nation of gentlemen farmers or a close approximation thereof, you have an urban proletariat.

Just as a lawn doesn't maintain itself without weeding, a society so tranquil that no one sees a need for gun control laws, so prosperous that advocates of socialism and welfare have no audience to turn to... is a happy accident of history, and if you want it to continue beyond a moment, it needs to be carefully and artificially maintained.

Of course, the problem is that in 1820 or thereabouts, the Pill hadn't been invented yet.

Bob G on November 28, 2010, 09:59:54 am
I just want the black people to be able to eat at any restaurant they like, yesterday. For a value of yesterday that equals July 4, 1776 A.D.. If that takes Martians with ray guns enforcing their laws with a rod of iron, well, then, that's what it takes in order that freedom and justice may reign.

So instead of government pointing guns at the heads of blacks and saying, "You can't eat here!", you prefer the government point guns at the heads of restaurant owners and saying, "You have to let blacks eat here!". Where's the 'freedom' in that?

Why not put the guns away?

If an old, retired Christian lady is trying to supplement her limited income by leasing out some of the space in her house left after her spouse has died and her kids have left the nest,  will you point your gun at her head to make her rent to Satanists?

No to your last question. There should be limits which distinguish between major businesses and employers and minor ones.

Why? Isn't the principle the same whether it's Grandma renting out a room, 'Joe's Diner' serving meals, or Best Buy selling cell phones, etc.?

And who sets the limit? It's OK for Grandma to not rent a room to Satanists. How about 10 rooms? 100? 1000? 10K? She's providing the same accommodations in each case, it's only the scale that changes. How, then, does the principle change?

Quote
But to your first question, the freedom in that is for the black people who are no longer victims of segregation.


At the expense of the freedom restaurateurs to *not* do business with those they choose. 'Segregation' stops when the government stops pointing guns at the heads of blacks to keep them from eating at the lunch counter. Why then must the government start pointing guns at the heads of restaurant owners? If the guns come out, 'freedom' disappears regardless of whom they're pointed at.

And know that the freedom of white owners not to serve or employ blacks also allows black owners the freedom not to serve or employ whites. If the proprietors are stupid enough to limit their clientele in that way, *it's their choice*.

Quote
Segregation endured for decades - for generations.

Government-enforced separation of the races in the US has been over for nearly half a century.

Quote
Had the U.S. Federal Government not abandoned Reconstruction so quickly, but kept at it until total equality between the races had been achieved, then Northern cities would not be suffering from the social problems associated with slums and inner cities. There would just be educated middle-class black people just like the educated middle-class white people, neither one getting into any trouble.

Can I have some of whatever it is you are smoking? First, there's never going to be 'total equality between the races' for a number of reasons. There *can* be equality of opportunity for all individuals of all races. Second, there's always going to be an 'underclass' of (even if only relatively) disadvantaged and potentially disaffected individuals of whatever races. As the Bible says, "The poor are always with us."

Quote
The presence in a society of a cohesive group of disaffected individuals, disaffected due to bad treatment or poverty, is an intolerable menace to national unity, social order, and tranquility. Hence, it must not be allowed to develop - it must be nipped in the bud the moment it starts to peek out.

Alright, Adolf. Fire up the gulags.

Quote
Hence, if a business won't be profitable unless the workers are so badly underpaid they must live in tenements . . .the government is expected,
By whom?
Quote
by having minimum wage laws, by having laws that protect trade unions, and so on, to ensure that we just do without that business.

So instead of having poor opportunities for advancement and service to the community, there are *none*? That doesn't sound like a good plan for social progress to me.

Quote
Just as a lawn doesn't maintain itself without weeding, a society so tranquil that no one sees a need for gun control laws, so prosperous that advocates of socialism and welfare have no audience to turn to... is a happy accident of history, and if you want it to continue beyond a moment, it needs to be carefully and artificially maintained.

Society is not a lawn and people are not plants. What, besides the grave, is 'tranquil'? Who decides who gets to do the 'weeding'? With those 'untranquil' elements being weeded out stood up against the wall and shot? NO THANK YOU!
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

quadibloc on November 28, 2010, 01:58:51 pm
Hence, if a business won't be profitable unless the workers are so badly underpaid they must live in tenements . . .the government is expected,
By whom?
Quote
by having minimum wage laws, by having laws that protect trade unions, and so on, to ensure that we just do without that business.

So instead of having poor opportunities for advancement and service to the community, there are *none*? That doesn't sound like a good plan for social progress to me.

Quote
Just as a lawn doesn't maintain itself without weeding, a society so tranquil that no one sees a need for gun control laws, so prosperous that advocates of socialism and welfare have no audience to turn to... is a happy accident of history, and if you want it to continue beyond a moment, it needs to be carefully and artificially maintained.

Society is not a lawn and people are not plants. What, besides the grave, is 'tranquil'? Who decides who gets to do the 'weeding'? With those 'untranquil' elements being weeded out stood up against the wall and shot? NO THANK YOU!
Very good points. But I'm not talking about getting rid of the poor or getting rid of opportunities for them that don't measure up to our standards!

Instead of evil social planners that want to exploit the poor or out-group for the sake of the rich or in-group, who only eliminate an exploitable group when it becomes a security risk, I am thinking of good social planners, who want to make sure that everyone, always, lives like the fortunate members of the in-group.

So, we start with a society in which everyone is living pretty comfortably. Perhaps this excludes some indigenous people only recently pushed out of the way, but that is neglected for the moment. So we have old Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and the like living peacefully as gentleman farmers.

But then some evil scoundrels come on the scene. They see a coal mine, and think, "I could get rich if I could hire people to mine this coal cheaply", or they see cotton and think, "This could sell to the mills of England, if only I could get people to pick it". But, alas, their dreams get nowhere, because there is an open frontier to the west, and nobody wants to be a coal miner or a cotton picker when they can be free and independent on a homestead.

If we were dealing with China or India, then, yes, there would be starving masses to whom picking cotton or mining coal for a pittance would be an improvement on their current circumstances and it wouldn't make sense to take away opportunities, substandard as they might be.

The assumption is, therefore, that our good social planners maintain a situation where people are economically independent enough for something like AnCap to work by preventing evil scoundrels from nefariously inventing slavery or closing the frontier - so as to create the poverty that lets them have the cheap workforce they want. It isn't the opportunities, but the poverty that makes these things look like opportunities, that needs to be prevented.

 

anything