No government? [...if you just have the private sector]

[Amorphos]

No government? [...if you just have the private sector]

Firstly I am wondering how this would work?

If it wouldn’t, then ‘small govt’ is teetering on the edge of that failure? Or supported by what it is against ~ statism.

Involved in the question is how you distribute wealth fairly, a minority could end up owning everything [banks or corporate business] and the rest of us comparatively little. Equally, how do you help the disabled and poor if you have no state welfare system, surely the private sector would have to create something similar ~ so what’s the point, It would still have to centralise money in order to pay for that.
If it was left up to individuals to help the poor, elderly and disabled, then would those people feel like they have to beg for welfare? Would individuals feel a duty to pay for then? Maybe the disabled but most people who are against the state tend to have a dim view of the poor and unemployed, so how can we expect those people to be anything but selfish with their money?

Generally, how do you have no state or govt? …without doing exactly what it is doing?

[Enemy of the State]

I assume you're talking about market anarchists. Let me make this clear, nobody is advocating no government. I want to introduce some competition into government. Allow multiple governments to compete for citizens in the same territory. So you choose which government you associate yourself with. This government could simply protect you from coercion, or be something similar to the modern welfare state, or it could be communist, whatever you can imagine, as long as it's all voluntary.

[hellheaven1987]

I assume you're talking about market anarchists. Let me make this clear, nobody is advocating no government. I want to introduce some competition into government. Allow multiple governments to compete for citizens in the same territory. So you choose which government you associate yourself with. This government could simply protect you from coercion, or be something similar to the modern welfare state, or it could be communist, whatever you can imagine, as long as it's all voluntary.

We already know the result of multiple governments during American Civil War.

[Enemy of the State]

We already know the result of multiple governments during American Civil War.

Please enlighten me.

[Amorphos]

I assume you're talking about market anarchists. Let me make this clear, nobody is advocating no government.

Yes indeed, I am partially taken by the idea of market anarchism, hence I want to know how it would resolve problems. If they don’t want no government and have good reasons for that, then surely that’s an exponent of small government?

Aside from that how do you cope with the poor etc if its all voluntary? People with money would find all manner of reasons why it is better spent elsewhere than e.g. on the unemployed or disabled. Most businesses run on tight finances and if they do well they simply invest more into what they are doing. So why would they even think of giving money to the poor?

I don’t see what switching between governments does, it seams the same as if you create a private enterprise for welfare, one way or another you get a group who provides a service weather its one government or another, or even non governmental ~ private. You are doing the same thing, except I don’t know how the private sector could run welfare as a business. Somehow you got to get money freely from individuals who are more likely to want it for their own purposes.

In other words, tax gains govt the revenue needed for such things and people have no choice but to pay it, so how would the private sector achieve welfare without doing something similar ~ all of which is non - voluntary!


I am presuming that market anarchists don’t mean something like this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igq2KZ2uiCg

Is it some kind of conservatism that tries to be anarchic but just doesn’t get there in any way whatsoever.

[hellheaven1987]

Please enlighten me.

The war did not start immediately after the secession, but only a few months later when both sides finally could not agree a term. Now, there is no guarantee that the friction of all governments within one country can be solved by legal means, and when it cannot solve, people turn into force, just like what happened during American Civil War.

Unless you have faith on humanity, and believe all governments would not use violence to solve their problems. Unfortunately, history already point out such harmony is beyond the boundary of humanity.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

I assume you're talking about market anarchists. Let me make this clear, nobody is advocating no government. I want to introduce some competition into government. Allow multiple governments to compete for citizens in the same territory. So you choose which government you associate yourself with. This government could simply protect you from coercion, or be something similar to the modern welfare state, or it could be communist, whatever you can imagine, as long as it's all voluntary.

A very interesting idea.

But, very "pie in the sky" and something that would inevitably lead to conflict.

[Thorn777]

I assume you're talking about market anarchists. Let me make this clear, nobody is advocating no government. I want to introduce some competition into government. Allow multiple governments to compete for citizens in the same territory. So you choose which government you associate yourself with. This government could simply protect you from coercion, or be something similar to the modern welfare state, or it could be communist, whatever you can imagine, as long as it's all voluntary.

Haha, just imagine the bureaucratic hellhole to live in.

Anyway there is "different govts" to choose from in a whole array of country's, including Commies and Libertarians. Though in those country's you just don't have to make 5 different departments of finances or whatever.

[Problem Sleuth]

I assume you're talking about market anarchists. Let me make this clear, nobody is advocating no government. I want to introduce some competition into government. Allow multiple governments to compete for citizens in the same territory. So you choose which government you associate yourself with. This government could simply protect you from coercion, or be something similar to the modern welfare state, or it could be communist, whatever you can imagine, as long as it's all voluntary.

What's stopping the governments from coercing money out of their citizens? Instead of competing in the same territory, the government simply creates its own, separate territory where it has a monopoly. Your idea is impractical because coercive governments are capable of fielding far greater resources than non-coercive governments. Furthermore, it fails to take into account the power of ideology. People are willing to do extremely irrational things (with regards to their self-interest) in order to advance what they see as a better ideology. Coercive governments driven by ideology are capable of mobilizing forces on a scale unimaginable to non-coercive governments. If necessary, they can force every last able-bodied man to fight, and suck every last drop out of the economy that they can into building weapons for them to use. The self-interest of individuals limits how much they're willing to pay non-coercive governments for defense. The only limit of coercive government is how many people they have and how strong the economy is.

[magickyleo101]

Robert Nozick has a really good book on the whole "multiple competing governments" idea. A basic response is that even if the governments generally wanted to avoid a fight against each other, there would be cases where individuals belonging to competing governments would have disagreements and the governments wouldn't always agree as to who was in the wrong. They'd then be bound to fight it out, and eventually one government would come out on top.

[Phier]

Robert Nozick has a really good book on the whole "multiple competing governments" idea. A basic response is that even if the governments generally wanted to avoid a fight against each other, there would be cases where individuals belonging to competing governments would have disagreements and the governments wouldn't always agree as to who was in the wrong. They'd then be bound to fight it out, and eventually one government would come out on top.

I have to agree. It would never be sustainable.

[Denny Crane!]

Robert Nozick has a really good book on the whole "multiple competing governments" idea. A basic response is that even if the governments generally wanted to avoid a fight against each other, there would be cases where individuals belonging to competing governments would have disagreements and the governments wouldn't always agree as to who was in the wrong. They'd then be bound to fight it out, and eventually one government would come out on top.

It is no different to what we have now and we manage

[magickyleo101]

It is no different to what we have now and we manage

You mean with multiple countries? Because I think the last thing you want is for every contract to be as hard to enforce as a multinational contract, or every wrong to be as hard to seek compensation for as a multinational tort.

Life is enjoyable in the status quo only because for the most part when a guy steals from us he's in our country and can be apprehended by our police. When someone from Nigeria steals your bank account, or when Exon goes into the jungle and dumps poison around a bunch of villages, the usual result is that the victim just has to deal with it.

[Enemy of the State]

Way too much to quote. I'm going to be brief.

Robert Nozick has a really good book on the whole "multiple competing governments" idea. A basic response is that even if the governments generally wanted to avoid a fight against each other, there would be cases where individuals belonging to competing governments would have disagreements and the governments wouldn't always agree as to who was in the wrong. They'd then be bound to fight it out, and eventually one government would come out on top.

But that makes no sense profit wise. Arbitration would be a lot less costly.

What's stopping the governments from coercing money out of their citizens? Instead of competing in the same territory, the government simply creates its own, separate territory where it has a monopoly. Your idea is impractical because coercive governments are capable of fielding far greater resources than non-coercive governments. Furthermore, it fails to take into account the power of ideology. People are willing to do extremely irrational things (with regards to their self-interest) in order to advance what they see as a better ideology. Coercive governments driven by ideology are capable of mobilizing forces on a scale unimaginable to non-coercive governments. If necessary, they can force every last able-bodied man to fight, and suck every last drop out of the economy that they can into building weapons for them to use. The self-interest of individuals limits how much they're willing to pay non-coercive governments for defense. The only limit of coercive government is how many people they have and how strong the economy is. Today 09:37 PM

How can it "create" a territory? Set itself up in the wilderness? Not enough resources and people.
Consider how difficult a task getting rid of the state actually is, maintaing anarchy pales in comparison to the mountain ahead of us.

Are you aware that every single system which relies on any form of anarchy has repeatedly and systematically failed?

Why? Because anarchists, I use that as general term, come up with ideas "Let's have system where there is no, umm, you know... State or government or there are really many and you can choose between them freely" and fail to explain from ground to top how it would WORK.

No, I mean really work. Most examples of how they "work" require humans to act in ways which are clearly conflicting with basic human instinct.
IE, they work if applied to creatures completely different from humans.

I'm not going to start explaining every little detail of how this society would function. That's not possible, nor is it needed. As long as there is less coercion, we've improved the world. Everything else we can think about later.

You have to have a way to stop people in power positions, from ripping off or otherwise abusing those with less power. This is why you need govt.

Where are you going to find these angels to run the state? Politicians use their power to screw us over all the time.

[magickyleo101]

But that makes no sense profit wise. Arbitration would be a lot less costly.

The governments won't always agree with the outcome of the arbitration. In the real world (i.e. where we have a single government) arbitration can be "binding arbitration" which both sides are bound to respect, but that's not the case with just some random arbitration panel. The losing party has nothing stopping it from disregarding the arbitration.

[Enemy of the State]

The governments won't always agree with the outcome of the arbitration. In the real world (i.e. where we have a single government) arbitration can be "binding arbitration" which both sides are bound to respect, but that's not the case with just some random arbitration panel. The losing party has nothing stopping it from disregarding the arbitration.

But why would they not agree to the decision? Handling things peacefully costs less.

[Tiwaz]

I'm not going to start explaining every little detail of how this society would function. That's not possible, nor is it needed. As long as there is less coercion, we've improved the world. Everything else we can think about later.

Yes it is needed. If you cannot explain how things can function the way you say they will, we have no reason to believe that they do. You cannot even prove that there would be less coercion! I say there will be MORE!

You can't "think about later". Thinking things about later will just make it possible to go far further into deadend and then have no means to return.

When you have anarchist society which is steadily becoming one where every clique is at war with everyone else, there is no "think about later".

And about coercion being increased. That is explained by others here already. Governments in your theory have no reason to enforce anything which would be detrimental to their "customers". In essence, rape is only crime if it targets someone from same government.

And guns shall be plentiful to ensure no other government will try to enforce their laws upon customers of this one.


Oh what a happy, happy society.

[Denny Crane!]

Yes it is needed. If you cannot explain how things can function the way you say they will, we have no reason to believe that they do. You cannot even prove that there would be less coercion! I say there will be MORE!

You can't "think about later". Thinking things about later will just make it possible to go far further into deadend and then have no means to return.

When you have anarchist society which is steadily becoming one where every clique is at war with everyone else, there is no "think about later".

And about coercion being increased. That is explained by others here already. Governments in your theory have no reason to enforce anything which would be detrimental to their "customers". In essence, rape is only crime if it targets someone from same government.

And guns shall be plentiful to ensure no other government will try to enforce their laws upon customers of this one.


Oh what a happy, happy society.

In another words neither of you has a clue what will happen. What a surprise fortune tellers aren't real!

[Amorphos]

Furthermore, it fails to take into account the power of ideology. People are willing to do extremely irrational things (with regards to their self-interest) in order to advance what they see as a better ideology. Coercive governments driven by ideology are capable of mobilizing forces on a scale unimaginable to non-coercive governments.

I don’t agree with that [good point though], try changing the banks or some other international entity, its impossible unless you get the G8 at least or G20 to demand that change, even then they can still say 4Q and do as they wish. I presume then that market anarchism would create a similarly fractured I.e. decentralised and worldwide institution [i know banks are centralised also but its a similar break up of power]. No part [break off ideology and or state] can change the whole and as all nations within it would be lesser partners. They could go it alone but they would loose on the economic front, not to mention that most nations need recourses from others.

Of course, this is its good side, the scary side is that it wont want to be changed even for the good, kinda like a runaway train with no democracy driving it, just a few innocuous bankers or business leaders.

I agree that it would be rife for coercion and manipulation of the public.

[Kjertesvein]

No government? [...if you just have the private sector]

Firstly I am wondering how this would work?

If it wouldn’t, then ‘small govt’ is teetering on the edge of that failure? Or supported by what it is against ~ statism.

Involved in the question is how you distribute wealth fairly, a minority could end up owning everything [banks or corporate business] and the rest of us comparatively little. Equally, how do you help the disabled and poor if you have no state welfare system, surely the private sector would have to create something similar ~ so what’s the point, It would still have to centralise money in order to pay for that.
If it was left up to individuals to help the poor, elderly and disabled, then would those people feel like they have to beg for welfare? Would individuals feel a duty to pay for then? Maybe the disabled but most people who are against the state tend to have a dim view of the poor and unemployed, so how can we expect those people to be anything but selfish with their money?

Generally, how do you have no state or govt? …without doing exactly what it is doing?

Firstly, it woud be highly up to the culture which is already there. Scandinavia would have one model, while Sicely would perhaps have diffrent angle on that. h