I think your specific critique regarding the profitability of crime and war applies very fairly to Friedman. Does it apply to other ancap, who do ponder defense against foreign invasion?
And of course, these are not issues unique to stateless societies. Many states are helpless against foreign invasion. Costa Rica has no military. Many states have experienced corrupt courts. If we can make use of competition somehow, Friedman's account is of interest. If we can’t, how do we address the question of controlling a monopoly of legitimate force? Philosophers since Plato have tried to address the question. I think the optimists all have made simplifying assumptions as strong as those made by Friedman.
Much appreciated. Yes any theory which incorporates self-interest (as any good should) to agents would have to deal with the profitability of violence and rights violations. So arguments on the ideal form of human organization would have to be largely empirically based to determine how well these forms would deal with social vs. personal welfare conflicts.
Culture is also a vital but often overlooked factor in these debates, as many participants have focused nearly exclusively institutions. And institutions which work well under one set of circumstances may not work so well in another. As an aside, Costa Rica's healthy governance may owe in part to its lacking a military in a part of a world where military coups are common and destructive. A standing army may work well for western nations, but can be horrible for less stable ones.
Some of these critiques are good. However this does fall into some pitfalls of assuming that 1 problems will occur, and 2 these aren't problems that exist currently, 3 solutions which we use currently won't work. For example what if P.As go to war with each other, ignores the fact that states go to war with eachother. P.As could just ignore rules and attack weaker P.As and their clients is ignoring that nothing is stopping say Germany invading Luxembourg beyond responses from other states and general accepted norms. Now this is not to say Anarcho-capitalism would be vaguely functional compared to what we have now, but one might as well say you've debunked states and especially disproved Luxembourg , if it's just strong beats up weak as an argument. You need to say having a bunch of non-territorial PAs causes unique problems. We're living in a world where Russia invades Ukraine, but the US doesn't annex the Bahamas, Germany doesn't take Luxembourg and Lichtenstein, and the Taliban attacks Iran. Annoyingly we're in a world where things both work and don't.
Right, we don’t have much warfare, but we also don’t have PAs. We have governments that (largely) recognize a kantian notion of rights. And where we would have purely self-interested PAs, we would also likely have more violence and exploitation.
I don't know if you can say governments aren't self interested.Wilhelm and Nicholas lost their thrones and lives from WW1 a war they actually started. Democratically elected governments face loss of elections if their wars are too unpopular even ignoring revolution ala Maidan for far less then a disastrous war. Now this is not either or, many government figures believe and hold some moral precepts but it is unclear that PAs would be immoral and governments alone would be moral.Their customers would also have to be immoral, for there to be no market forces.
This is arguing that governments will do things that PAs cannot. Granted maybe there are, but you'd need to reason why governments are moral kantians and PAs cannot be.
This article doesn’t argue that governments are peaceful. Only that we can’t assume that self-interested PAs would be. So it comes down to an empirical issue of which system would be better.
Additionally it states that PAs which specify courts that have dumb laws like murder is legal would have to fight a war against everybody else. This is not to say the society would be considered just, people or groups that pay large amounts might get off with a very nice prison or compensation for murder,instead of a bad prison hard Labor and execution, though they might pay highly for it. Additionally the system could be gamed like life insurance companies are. But I feel like you are doing the book a disservice by arguing it portrayed a utopia. It was optimistic about its subject matter but not that optimistic.
For the record, the above critique doesn't just apply for relations between nations that have and have not adopted the PA system, as the national defense chapter argues, but between all individuals and PAs that differ in power.
I am a fan of the book and its reasoning defending the PA system was very convincing on an initial read. However, that reasoning does rely on certain assumptions that the above only makes explicit.
I believe page 270 3rd edition deals with it and states that this problem is significant enough to potentially threaten the system. It states that an equilibrium might be reached, by analogy of state territory being stable with their power differential,or the system fails. I would regard this as analogous to where states conquer one another where the equilibria is not reached, and previous examples where Lichtenstein is allowed to exist where it is where the equilibria is reached.
Fair enough, I don't think the author intended to say there would never be conflict,only that a shoot out wouldn't occur after every dispute.The permanent court of arbitration is a similar concept for states ,and examples like the congress of Berlin exist where disputes are meted out.
Typo? “Where the state has been deemed legitimate, prison gangs have taken their place.” Should be Where the state has been deemed illegitimate, prison gangs have taken their place?
I think your specific critique regarding the profitability of crime and war applies very fairly to Friedman. Does it apply to other ancap, who do ponder defense against foreign invasion?
And of course, these are not issues unique to stateless societies. Many states are helpless against foreign invasion. Costa Rica has no military. Many states have experienced corrupt courts. If we can make use of competition somehow, Friedman's account is of interest. If we can’t, how do we address the question of controlling a monopoly of legitimate force? Philosophers since Plato have tried to address the question. I think the optimists all have made simplifying assumptions as strong as those made by Friedman.
Much appreciated. Yes any theory which incorporates self-interest (as any good should) to agents would have to deal with the profitability of violence and rights violations. So arguments on the ideal form of human organization would have to be largely empirically based to determine how well these forms would deal with social vs. personal welfare conflicts.
Culture is also a vital but often overlooked factor in these debates, as many participants have focused nearly exclusively institutions. And institutions which work well under one set of circumstances may not work so well in another. As an aside, Costa Rica's healthy governance may owe in part to its lacking a military in a part of a world where military coups are common and destructive. A standing army may work well for western nations, but can be horrible for less stable ones.
Some of these critiques are good. However this does fall into some pitfalls of assuming that 1 problems will occur, and 2 these aren't problems that exist currently, 3 solutions which we use currently won't work. For example what if P.As go to war with each other, ignores the fact that states go to war with eachother. P.As could just ignore rules and attack weaker P.As and their clients is ignoring that nothing is stopping say Germany invading Luxembourg beyond responses from other states and general accepted norms. Now this is not to say Anarcho-capitalism would be vaguely functional compared to what we have now, but one might as well say you've debunked states and especially disproved Luxembourg , if it's just strong beats up weak as an argument. You need to say having a bunch of non-territorial PAs causes unique problems. We're living in a world where Russia invades Ukraine, but the US doesn't annex the Bahamas, Germany doesn't take Luxembourg and Lichtenstein, and the Taliban attacks Iran. Annoyingly we're in a world where things both work and don't.
Thanks for the reply!
Right, we don’t have much warfare, but we also don’t have PAs. We have governments that (largely) recognize a kantian notion of rights. And where we would have purely self-interested PAs, we would also likely have more violence and exploitation.
I don't know if you can say governments aren't self interested.Wilhelm and Nicholas lost their thrones and lives from WW1 a war they actually started. Democratically elected governments face loss of elections if their wars are too unpopular even ignoring revolution ala Maidan for far less then a disastrous war. Now this is not either or, many government figures believe and hold some moral precepts but it is unclear that PAs would be immoral and governments alone would be moral.Their customers would also have to be immoral, for there to be no market forces.
This is arguing that governments will do things that PAs cannot. Granted maybe there are, but you'd need to reason why governments are moral kantians and PAs cannot be.
This article doesn’t argue that governments are peaceful. Only that we can’t assume that self-interested PAs would be. So it comes down to an empirical issue of which system would be better.
Additionally it states that PAs which specify courts that have dumb laws like murder is legal would have to fight a war against everybody else. This is not to say the society would be considered just, people or groups that pay large amounts might get off with a very nice prison or compensation for murder,instead of a bad prison hard Labor and execution, though they might pay highly for it. Additionally the system could be gamed like life insurance companies are. But I feel like you are doing the book a disservice by arguing it portrayed a utopia. It was optimistic about its subject matter but not that optimistic.
"National defense:the hard problem" Is explicitly listed as an issue and is a chapter title.
For the record, the above critique doesn't just apply for relations between nations that have and have not adopted the PA system, as the national defense chapter argues, but between all individuals and PAs that differ in power.
I am a fan of the book and its reasoning defending the PA system was very convincing on an initial read. However, that reasoning does rely on certain assumptions that the above only makes explicit.
I believe page 270 3rd edition deals with it and states that this problem is significant enough to potentially threaten the system. It states that an equilibrium might be reached, by analogy of state territory being stable with their power differential,or the system fails. I would regard this as analogous to where states conquer one another where the equilibria is not reached, and previous examples where Lichtenstein is allowed to exist where it is where the equilibria is reached.
Fair enough, I don't think the author intended to say there would never be conflict,only that a shoot out wouldn't occur after every dispute.The permanent court of arbitration is a similar concept for states ,and examples like the congress of Berlin exist where disputes are meted out.
Typo? “Where the state has been deemed legitimate, prison gangs have taken their place.” Should be Where the state has been deemed illegitimate, prison gangs have taken their place?
Yes it is, thanks for spotting!