AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.

I have seen this example [of Somalia] given frequently in a variety of venues; unfortunately, it is a poor example.

I'd have to say that you're right:  The problem is that this is not your perfect AnCap, but rather what happens once people with some greed and power get their hands on it.  It doesn't matter too much where the funding comes from, as long as it's sufficient fora group of people to decide to enforce their will on another group.  How do you think the concept of a government got started in the first place?  It doesn't matter that most people are willing to live peacefully and with respect for eachother, as long as there's a few that are willing to take what they want by force.

The error here is in assuming that there is some "perfect" AnCap structure.  Utopia is not an option, and AnCap advocates repeat this almost ad nauseum.    Utopia is simply a "straw man" deployed by AnCap opponents to facilitate their otherwise weak arguments.

That being said, assume (an AnCap adherents do) that there are similar numbers of people who will act unethically in both AnCap and government-based societies.  Those individuals will seek out power and wealth in both cases and further they will engage in unethical behavior to gain it.  Those in government-based societies will tend, in large part, to be attracted to positions in (or close to) government, as (a) government is a nexus of power and wealth, and (b) the tools of government (specifically the license to threaten and/or use force) make it both easier and less obvious to take act unethically.   Further, as that power is gathered, one use will be to support those sympathetic to that approach, which means even more individuals who accept (and likely engage in)  the unethical uses of power.

Compare this to an AnCap society.  The unethical individuals in these societies will have a much wiser set of targets to attempt to infiltrate.  They may succeed to some degree; however, their unethical actions will be more difficult to camouflage as they look far less like acceptable behavior.  Further, since the points at which they attempt to gain such influence will be more diffuse, and it will be much more difficult for a "critical mass" of similar individuals to gather significant power.  That diffusion reduces both their ability to do so safely (since they will have far less insulation), and the tools for disempowering them will be greater, since those who object can simply avoid doing business with them, instead relying on their more ethical competitors.  Even should they be able to cobble together a monopoly, they will still be hampered by others entering the market at competitors and thus break the monopoly (or at least keep them from being "egregiously" unethical).

In both cases, of course, these unethical individuals may seek to use violent force.  In the government model, the use of such force may be camouflaged by the idea that the government has the sole authority to use such force -- a fact that the unethical will use to their advantage.  In the AnCap model, the use of such force will be met with the use of violent force in response -- a fact that will be well-known to those deciding to initiate it, and one which (without being able to fleece taxpayers to pay for or to give tacit support to) will be quite expensive to maintain.

One thing that does keep the government from being as bad as this would imply:  It also attracts ethical people that wish to aid, by providing a power structure they can do this from.  Sadly, it is only existing people that limit which of thes is more likely to achieve power.  Once corruption has set in, it needs a virtual revolution to clean it most of the way out again.  Then again, I suppose I'm just cynical enough to believe that no government form or lack thereof works anywhere near as well as its proponents believe. 

This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.

Also, how do you prevent collusion among companies?  It has been said that you just quit using one company and go their competitor.
But, what if all the companies in your three state region (would you really drive 3 states away to avoid high prices?) in one industry, say dairy products, had secretly colluded to raise prices and keep them high?
Obviously you cant prevent that in An-Cap, but what do you do if its happening?
Just accept whatever they want to charge?  Drive three states away just to get a lower price on a gallon of milk?

Okay, I don't know why I bother because it seems you either can not or will not learn, but here's an answer to this point: If all the milk producers in 3 states who were selling milk at, say, 3.00 FRN/gal suddenly decided to charge 10.00, and NOBODY broke the embargo, then no, you wouldn't drive 3 states away for a gallon of milk, you'd rent a 10,000 gallon refrigerated tank truck, drive to a fourth state, fill it up at 3.00, drive it back home and sell your milk for 4.00.

I keep forgetting that An-Cappers have no life.  In an AnCap society, no-one has a family to take care, no-one is expected to go to work and stay their all day performing the work they are paid for; no AnCapper has to worry about money, or anything a person in today's society has to worry about.
Like bringing home enough money (or barterable goods) to pay the rent/mortgage(oops, those dont exist, sorry), buy food, pay the bills, pay for medical treatments when necessary, have fun, spend time with family/friends.
You know, the stuff that makes up most peoples lives.

I'm sure you could rent a truck and go buy milk and the re-sell it, but what happens when you run out?
Do you go buy more?  Sounds like you are starting up a business; hope you can stomach the attendant costs of that business.

What do you do when your supplier raises your prices?  At some point it becomes un-economical to travel 3 states away looking for the lowest priced milk you can buy in bulk.

And what happens when you arrive with your tanker, only to find no-one wants to give up that much of their milk?
It is such a glib response that I can tell you did not think it through.

Eventually the colluding dairy farmers will attempt to intervene(or maybe not...)
If they do, how do you protect your tanker truck of milk from them?  Or perhaps from the guys they've hired to keep you from your deliveries.

Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business; in a lawless society like AnCap, whats to keep your areas dairy farmers from doing the same thing?  (Granted, they probably wouldnt; buy they might hire someone.)

This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.

I propose a small correction to this; "Everybody who chooses to 'enforces' the ZAP".  In any given situation no one obligated to enforce it, although the aggrieved party is quite likely to if the aggression is significant (sufficiently "small" aggressions are likely to be overlooked in many cases).  Also, no third party has the right to intervene without the permission of the aggrieved party (or at least one of the parties, if there is more than one) -- in an "emergency" one might well intervene before getting such permission, but it that permission is not subsequently given, the one intervening may have to compensate anyone harmed by the intervention.

Ah, I see; no "Good Samaritan" or "hold harmless" rules.  So if I decide to aid a stranger who is obviously in distress, and who does not subsequently give me permission (of forgiveness) can then demand that I pay for any help I gave him.

Wonderful.  There goes your "milk of human kindness".  Most people will think, "if I intervene, I can be held responsible for any unfavorable outcome from either side.  And since one side has to lose, the loser can take me to court for intervention.   Hmmm... I'll just let them sort it out."

Wouldnt want to live there.

Ah, I see; no "Good Samaritan" or "hold harmless" rules.  So if I decide to aid a stranger who is obviously in distress, and who does not subsequently give me permission (of forgiveness) can then demand that I pay for any help I gave him.

Wonderful.  There goes your "milk of human kindness".  Most people will think, "if I intervene, I can be held responsible for any unfavorable outcome from either side.  And since one side has to lose, the loser can take me to court for intervention.   Hmmm... I'll just let them sort it out."

Wouldnt want to live there.

ContraryGuy:

Can you possibly quit being such an idiot for a few minutes?  If the person who "is in obvious distress" does not want some supposed "help", then any such "help" that causes damage must be answered for.   You shoot the guy you think is robbing a woman -- but in fact is her boyfriend, showing her how to hold her purse so that it isn't easily taken -- and you have to pay for the medical care, lost wages, etc.  You don't get off free because you thought you were doing the right thing.  You don't get to do damage and contend it was for their own good -- you don't get to make that judgement for others, period.  Allowing otherwise is reward bullies for bullying.

If you want to help someone, all you have to do is ask and get permission first.  If it's a rare case of an emergency (at least as perceived by you) you man act, but you may have to pay for any damage you caused if you were wrong -- if you're not a total nit-wit, you will try to help while causing as little damage as you can (to minimize your own risk).  It's something a 6 year old child could understand -- why are you congenitally unable or unwilling to see that?

Ask first? How?

This happened last month, a boat dragged it's anchor and I went out in my kayak and secured it to an anchored log boom. Later a friend and I towed it back to a safe place with his big boat. Then the owner's wife was hysterically happy with us and promised us big chunks of salmon. Mmmm Salmon.

Should we have waited until asked then picked up the potentially splintered bits off some beach? Should she be held liable because due to some bizare accidents, I fell in? No harm done. Sure glad the orcas had just moved on though.

Note the same thing happened to MY boat a few months earlier and some one did much the same for me.

Call it karma maybe but it is good to do good.  At least it is where I live

Ask first? How?

Well, it is quite common for the person needing the presumed help to be around or easily available.  If you have the opportunity, you should ask -- it saves misunderstandings.  In this case, if the boat had some sort of registration visible, you could perhaps have used that to attempt to contact the owner and get permission before starting.

This happened last month, a boat dragged it's anchor and I went out in my kayak and secured it to an anchored log boom. Later a friend and I towed it back to a safe place with his big boat. Then the owner's wife was hysterically happy with us and promised us big chunks of salmon. Mmmm Salmon.

Should we have waited until asked then picked up the potentially splintered bits off some beach? Should she be held liable because due to some bizare accidents, I fell in? No harm done. Sure glad the orcas had just moved on though.

Note the same thing happened to oMY boat a few months earlier and some one did much the same for me.

This sounds like a common occurrence and a fairly standard practice, so the risk was minimal.  However, if you had misinterpreted the situation or handled it badly (perhaps the anchor hadn't dragged, but the boat was anchored while the owner was diving for something that had been lost, and moving the boat would strand them, or in your attempts to secure the boat you caused it to sink) the owner could legitimately claim a tort.  Hearing that you were just trying to help might convince the owner to overlook it, or cut a deal for something less than the full cost, but they wouldn't be obligated to.  Just because you think some action would help someone doesn't mean they will consider the action to be helpful.

Call it karma maybe but it is good to do good.  At least it is where I live

It is indeed good to do good; however, "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

Concidering the above posts...

There is the whole "being a good neighbor" thing too. The thing that should stop 90% of all frivolous (sp?) lawsuits in the world and make people settle their differences outside court, possibly across a cup of coffe.

Unfortunatly, these things called lawyers got their claws in the system and has convinced people that they can get money for free.

*Points at the prime example of what happened at the end of the TV show Top Gearīs travel through the southern US states and ended in New Orleans*

For some odd reason, people who try and pry money out of someone for busting their ribs while performing the Heimlich maneuver and saving their life tend to get very little help from any others on the future.

So either you are a "good neighbor" about it and come to terms, or you try and convince not only an arbitrator but also the rest of the community that you are not being a stingy git for demanding compensation for the other guy saving you from choking to death on a fishbone.

Excpetions will occure ofcourse.

One thing that does keep the government from being as bad as this would imply:  It also attracts ethical people that wish to aid, by providing a power structure they can do this from.

There is the whole "being a good neighbor" thing too.

Had a bit of a discussion in RL, about most cops being decent humans despite being more able to "get away" with sh*t than us commoners.  I suggested (then as here) that this had implications for the behavior of us ordinary cusses should we find ourselves in a similar (relative) absence of constraint.  My conversational partner (CP) proposed the burden of responsibility as a constraint on bad behavior, and it might be so.  I'd like to offer here an alternative, one that I have wtinessed personally, and for which there is a very similar, and very well-documented analog.

It goes now by the name of "the Pygmalion effect".  Teachers given students labeled as bright or dull (heck, even student researchers given rats labeled "maze-clever" or "maze-dull") find that their subjects live up -- or down -- to expectations.  I suggest that the relative lack of corrupt cops is due to this expectation, in policemen, of "better" behavior.

It follows that us ordinary ornery cusses, just by having restraining authority imposed to make us "better", behave on the whole rather worse than we would if we were assumed to be good.

And then we're told that that's just how we "are".

Hmm.

I submit that those who say we need government because our fellow men can't be trusted, reap what their expectations have sown -- that you actively contribute to the turpitude of your fellows, by expecting them (us) to be thus.  Sure it would take a saint to hear his inner angels over the social Teachings that say he's only not a criminal because he fears The Man.

What if we were all appointed as cops?  What if schooling involved police training (especially police training back in the day when it had more to do with defusing situations, and less with how to kill quickly & efficiently) so we were all qualified police?

This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.

Also, how do you prevent collusion among companies?  It has been said that you just quit using one company and go their competitor.
But, what if all the companies in your three state region (would you really drive 3 states away to avoid high prices?) in one industry, say dairy products, had secretly colluded to raise prices and keep them high?
Obviously you cant prevent that in An-Cap, but what do you do if its happening?
Just accept whatever they want to charge?  Drive three states away just to get a lower price on a gallon of milk?

Okay, I don't know why I bother because it seems you either can not or will not learn, but here's an answer to this point: If all the milk producers in 3 states who were selling milk at, say, 3.00 FRN/gal suddenly decided to charge 10.00, and NOBODY broke the embargo, then no, you wouldn't drive 3 states away for a gallon of milk, you'd rent a 10,000 gallon refrigerated tank truck, drive to a fourth state, fill it up at 3.00, drive it back home and sell your milk for 4.00.

I keep forgetting that An-Cappers have no life.  In an AnCap society, no-one has a family to take care, no-one is expected to go to work and stay their all day performing the work they are paid for; no AnCapper has to worry about money, or anything a person in today's society has to worry about.
Like bringing home enough money (or barterable goods) to pay the rent/mortgage(oops, those dont exist, sorry), buy food, pay the bills, pay for medical treatments when necessary, have fun, spend time with family/friends.
You know, the stuff that makes up most peoples lives.

I'm sure you could rent a truck and go buy milk and the re-sell it, but what happens when you run out?
Do you go buy more?  Sounds like you are starting up a business; hope you can stomach the attendant costs of that business.

Yes, exactly. You go buy more and do it again. If conditions persist making this activity possible, then what's so bad about starting up a business to do so? That would kind of take care of your paying the rent/feeding the kids quibble, wouldn't it? What costs? The cost of leasing the truck? 300 ferns, 800 with a driver if you don't want to take the time off from your day job to do the driving yourself (I checked. Of course, in an AnCap world, those costs would likely be significantly lower.). Cost of fuel. Cost of driving on someones' roadway. Cost of insurance, if you choose (If the road owner doesn't require you to be insured on hisher roadway, and if those costs aren't incorporated in the cost of leasing the truck). Figure 1500-2000 ferns for the trip, depending on if you make the drive yourself (probably slightly less in Rhode Island, probably a bit more in, say, Texas, due to the distances and attendant fuel costs involved). If, as in my scenario, you're grossing 10,000 ferns a trip, even you can see that that's 8,000 profit. Do that once a week, and you might even be able to quit your day job and spend MORE time with your friends and family which addresses another of your quibbles.

What do you do when your supplier raises your prices?  At some point it becomes un-economical to travel 3 states away looking for the lowest priced milk you can buy in bulk.

And what happens when you arrive with your tanker, only to find no-one wants to give up that much of their milk?
It is such a glib response that I can tell you did not think it through.

Quibble, quibble, quibble . . .

I gave you AN answer to your question. If you don't like that one, drink goats milk. Drink soy milk. Pay 10 ferns for a gallon of milk. Stop drinking milk. I don't drink milk*; I DON'T CARE!!! So kwitcherbitchin! Find your own answer!!!

Eventually the colluding dairy farmers will attempt to intervene(or maybe not...)
If they do, how do you protect your tanker truck of milk from them?  Or perhaps from the guys they've hired to keep you from your deliveries.

Quibble, quibble, quibble . . .
ZAP, ZAP, ZAP

Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)

In a lawless society like AnCap, whats to keep your areas dairy farmers from doing the same thing?  (Granted, they probably wouldnt; buy they might hire someone.)

The ZAP, and the attendant structures appendant to it.

*For purposes of illustration - actually, I do drink milk, at least in my tea.

Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)

I do vaguely remember having read claims that Standard Oil did genuinely do "nefarious and unsavory" things - such as requiring firms supplying them with transportation not to carry their competitor's products, either at all, or at least on the same terms, as a condition of receiving their business.

They may have achieved market dominance honestly, but then they abused it to obtain a near-monopoly. Of course, asking for a bulk discount isn't always an act of corruption either...

Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)

I do vaguely remember having read claims that Standard Oil did genuinely do "nefarious and unsavory" things - such as requiring firms supplying them with transportation not to carry their competitor's products, either at all, or at least on the same terms, as a condition of receiving their business.

They may have achieved market dominance honestly, but then they abused it to obtain a near-monopoly. Of course, asking for a bulk discount isn't always an act of corruption either...

But, at the end of the day, so what?  The price of oil was at it's all time lowest while SO was making deals like that.  With their monopoly "secured" and the inevitable price increases began, new competitors were entering the market. By the time antitrust had passed there were nearly 30 competing oil companies in the market again. Markets are constantly changing.  Today's "great deal" is tomorrow's "boat anchor".

Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)

I do vaguely remember having read claims that Standard Oil did genuinely do "nefarious and unsavory" things - such as requiring firms supplying them with transportation not to carry their competitor's products, either at all, or at least on the same terms, as a condition of receiving their business.

Indeed. Don't forget, these 'claims' were made by Standard Oil's competitors, who used these claims as an excuse to get the government to beat up on Standard Oil. Now who was being 'nefarious and unsavory'?

They may have achieved market dominance honestly, but then they abused it to obtain a near-monopoly. Of course, asking for a bulk discount isn't always an act of corruption either...

Indeed, a sharp business practice such as negotiating an exclusive service contract or, as you say, a bulk discount may makes it difficult for one's competitors to do business. This still does not equate to holding a gun to one's vendors' or competitors' heads. That was done by the competitors when they enlisted government aid to 'break up' Standard Oil.

And don't imagine that this kind of crap was relegated to the late 19th century, either. Look at what happened to the Bell system in the 1980s and to Microsoft in the 1990s. Not to mention the call for 'net neutrality' today.

This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.

I propose a small correction to this; "Everybody who chooses to 'enforces' the ZAP". . .

I accept the friendly amendment. Indeed, I was struggling to come to that point. I should have said that it's each individual's *responsibility* to help 'enforce' the ZAP. If one chooses not to do so, then one ought not to be surprised if others look upon one with disapprobation and are less likely to assist one in countering aggression in the future.

Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)

I do vaguely remember having read claims that Standard Oil did genuinely do "nefarious and unsavory" things - such as requiring firms supplying them with transportation not to carry their competitor's products, either at all, or at least on the same terms, as a condition of receiving their business.

Indeed. Don't forget, these 'claims' were made by Standard Oil's competitors, who used these claims as an excuse to get the government to beat up on Standard Oil. Now who was being 'nefarious and unsavory'?

They may have achieved market dominance honestly, but then they abused it to obtain a near-monopoly. Of course, asking for a bulk discount isn't always an act of corruption either...

Indeed, a sharp business practice such as negotiating an exclusive service contract or, as you say, a bulk discount may make it difficult for one's competitors to do business. This still does not equate to holding a gun to one's vendors' or competitors' heads. That was done by the competitors when they enlisted government aid to 'break up' Standard Oil.

And don't imagine that this kind of crap was relegated to the late 19th century, either. Look at what happened to the Bell system in the 1980s and to Microsoft in the 1990s. Not to mention the call for 'net neutrality' today.

So you have no problem with monopolies?  What happens if the company decides to violate the ZAP ti stay a monopoly?

I am not looking for one person to be the Big Stick that keeps everyone in line.  It is a given that not all people will adhere to the ZAP; that is why the exemption for self-defense of defense in aid of another.
But I keep coming to the question of Organized Crime.  Since no-one has said there would be no such thing in AnCap, I must assume there would be.  Not all people are or wish to be honest workers.
While one or two people can deal effectively with one or two criminals, what about the criminals who attack you when you are vulnerable?  After all, "you've gotta sleep some time."

I think it all comes down to money.  Will it cost more for Private Security Co. protection or to just pay for "protection."
Of course, for round the clock security, it'll cost you. and it'll cost more if you are honest about what you are paying for protection against.
Sounds like it would be more cost-effective to pay off the crime gang.  Unless you have to pay off several.

Buildings burn, and that volunteer fire department might have been paid to "show up late".
Too bad, you should have paid your "protection".
Its a shame that Private Security Co. couldnt save your business.  And they regret to inform you that they dont give refunds.

Should have paid your "protection."

Too bad you cant take the local crime gang to an arbitrator.

So you have no problem with monopolies?

Say rather that "monopoly" does not equal "uttermost evil".  It doesn't have to be a bad thing.  A monopoly on force, aka government, doesn't have to be a bad thing.  Oh, wait, yes it does.  Still, that's 'cos a monopoly on force (and defense of my person) is qualitatively different than a monopoly on milk.

What happens if the company decides to violate the ZAP ti stay a monopoly?

Then the transgressed-upon defend themselves.  Duh.  The "A" stands for "aggression" -- ZAP prohibits the initiation of harm.  It puts no restrictions on response to aggression (though seriously out-of-proportion retaliation will only be undertaken by the terminally stupid).

what about the criminals who attack you when you are vulnerable?

You mean, like cops who plant evidence?

OK, about gangs -- lessee.
There are more of "us" than of "them".  We discuss possible strategies well in advance of need and, if/when need arises, we form ad hoc response teams of whatever sort our community fancies.  Maybe we can get rid of them the way India drove out the Brits:  total (or near-total) noncooperation.

My community, at least, will follow the dictum "pain delayed is pain multiplied" and not wait till gangs get unmanageably large.


Dude, I ask just one thing, PUHLEASE:  stop asking for perfection.  "Well, what about this problem???" as if we ever said everything would be milk&honey in an AnCap.  Get this:  there will of course be problems -- and in an AnCap (even a ZAP one) we'll all of us have all the options our creative little minds can think of in order to solve them INSTEAD OF rote responses enshrined in <reverential whisper> law that, further, are allowed only by duly-anointed responders.

I ain't looking to live in a community of no problems.  I'm looking to live where creativity hasn't been shut down -- systematically shut down.  I tossed out a (just one) suggestion above but the real issue is:

IN AN ANCAP WE CAN DEAL WITH GANGS HOWEVER WE CAN IMAGINE.
UNDER A GOVERNMENT WE HAVE TO SIT BY PASSIVELY AND HOPE THE COPS CAN AND WILL DO "SOMETHING".

If you'd really rather live hoping for a shining knight to rescue you, well, there's no accounting for taste.  Just don't go insisting I join you.


Finally, can you take your own medicine?  Can you tell me how I'm supposed to protect myself from my "representatives" who send my protection money (taxes -- if you don't pay up, you get hurt) to bail out improvident bankers and tell me so sorry my house burned down or I got raped or my car broke an axle because the funds weren't there for fire or police or roads?  "Voting" them out of office is not an option when nobody knows who tallies ("tallies") the votes.