[Eran]

Excellent!

With this response, I am now confident you and I have much in common, with only minor differences (if any) regarding policy.

I share your confidence that without the artificial support of the state, the entire structure of production, and, in particular, dominant employee-employer relationships will change.

Current political culture is conditioned to look for government to solve virtually all of society's (both real and imaginary) problems. I like your attitude that sees workers helping themselves (and each other), rather than relying on hand-outs from the political system.

[SolarCross]

Excellent!

With this response, I am now confident you and I have much in common, with only minor differences (if any) regarding policy.

I share your confidence that without the artificial support of the state, the entire structure of production, and, in particular, dominant employee-employer relationships will change.

Current political culture is conditioned to look for government to solve virtually all of society's (both real and imaginary) problems. I like your attitude that sees workers helping themselves (and each other), rather than relying on hand-outs from the political system.

I agree. Market-anarchism and anarcho-communism (at least as I envision it) are mostly differences in emphasis and I am sure that in anarchy there is room for both. Probably in practice the activities of both those with 'right' and 'left' leanings will become so intertwined that it would take some doing to tell the one from the other.

[mum]

Equality matters where it can 'catch mice' then it is valuable to society. Education and health are clear examples of this. Is unequality valuable to society if it means bright children don't get a chance to be engineers or doctors but stupid children do get these chances even if they don't want it just because their parents can afford it?
Is unequality valuable to society if sick people are left to get sicker or die prematurely because they can't pay for medicine because they are too sick to work? Is unequality valuable to society if perfectly healthy well nourished rich people can monopolise the time of the most able doctors just because they have more money than sense or morals?

Taxizen I'm not sure if you are implying anything here.
I understand what you are saying, but are you implying that there needs to be some "programs" in place to help the poor with medical care/education etc or are you just saying that certain inequality causes inefficiencies in society ?
Just trying to find out exactly how you are thinking..

[Eran]

I'll let taxizen answer for himself.

If I was asked the question, I would say that poverty rather than inequality per-se is a problem. Genuine poverty is a problem that society ought to address rather than ignore. While I am confident that a free market will, in and by itself, do a lot to remove poverty, I cannot and do not rule out the possibility that it will prove insufficient.

If that was the case, members of society ought to "put their hands in their pockets" to help alleviate poverty. I think it is wrong of libertarians (both morally and tactically) to dismiss the problem of poverty.

What taxizen did was to point out some of the aspects that make poverty undesirable, focusing on its negative implications on the productivity of society.


None of the above, of course, should be taken to even hint that coercive redistribution is either necessary or even helpful for alleviating poverty.

[mum]

Yes I agree, I just want to get a clarification from taxizen.

Reasons why I believe poverty will be significantly reduced and catered for in a free market
1. minus tax and inflation everyone becomes richer
2. richer people = more/larger charity contributions
3. no regulations = more charities
4. no regulations and no tax = more private business opportunites, expecially for the very small business
5. no welfare = much higher general awareness that the needy are infact needy! Creating the desire of others to help.
6. richer people = more time to give to the needy
7. suggestions ?

[Eran]

A very important reason, in my mind, is less regulation -> inexpensive alternatives.

Here is my logic. People in the third world sustainably survive (though not well) on $1/day. In the West, even $10/day is unlikely to be enough. Why is that? The reason, I think, is that in the West, the kind of cheap options for housing, food and clothing are unavailable - they have been regulated away.

I am not suggesting we should celebrate $1/day existence. We shouldn't - it is nasty. But by relaxing product (as well as professional) regulations, those making $10-30/day would be easily able to survive. As it is, regulations force the kind of cost/safety choices reasonable for somebody making $50-100/day on those making much less.

A skilled medic (but not a licenses physician) could provide poor people with highly valuable (and moderately priced) medical advice. In the West, such person could get arrested.

You also neglected to mention the degree to which welfare depresses motivation for work and improvement. Without access to an automatic safety net, people are more likely to be motivated to care for themselves. They are also more likely to make responsible choices regarding marriage and children.

Finally, eliminating victimless crimes will direct energy and resources from the wasteful arms race between cops and drug dealers (for example) and into productive avenues from which society can benefit.

[SolarCross]

Yes I agree, I just want to get a clarification from taxizen.

Reasons why I believe poverty will be significantly reduced and catered for in a free market
1. minus tax and inflation everyone becomes richer
2. richer people = more/larger charity contributions
3. no regulations = more charities
4. no regulations and no tax = more private business opportunites, expecially for the very small business
5. no welfare = much higher general awareness that the needy are infact needy! Creating the desire of others to help.
6. richer people = more time to give to the needy
7. suggestions ?

This is my expectation as well.

The enlightened communist (not a marxist communist) recognises that free markets are an intrinsic part of the hoped for free society. Well meaning people react badly to the notion of free markets because crony capitalists are in the habit of falsely proclaiming allegiance to the idea when in fact they really just want state protectionism only for themselves but at the same time only want working class people to pay for that protection.

Inequality is not such an issue really in the absence of poverty. As eran noted poverty is inefficient but in the absence of poverty inequality is not clearly either inefficient or immoral.

In a stateless society operating a truely free market there is unlikely to be any significant poverty. Inequalities will probably exist but won't necessarily be generationally entrenched or cause either economic inefficiency or societal strife.

If these expectations of a free market are incorrect such that systemic problems may occurr such as generationally entrenched extreme poverty then that would likely lead to the resumption of the state or profound disorder.

But I am pretty confident stateless free markets are the way to go.

[mum]

A very important reason, in my mind, is less regulation -> inexpensive alternatives.

Here is my logic. People in the third world sustainably survive (though not well) on $1/day. In the West, even $10/day is unlikely to be enough. Why is that? The reason, I think, is that in the West, the kind of cheap options for housing, food and clothing are unavailable - they have been regulated away.

This is a good point.

I am not suggesting we should celebrate $1/day existence. We shouldn't - it is nasty. But by relaxing product (as well as professional) regulations, those making $10-30/day would be easily able to survive. As it is, regulations force the kind of cost/safety choices reasonable for somebody making $50-100/day on those making much less.

A skilled medic (but not a licenses physician) could provide poor people with highly valuable (and moderately priced) medical advice. In the West, such person could get arrested.

You also neglected to mention the degree to which welfare depresses motivation for work and improvement. Without access to an automatic safety net, people are more likely to be motivated to care for themselves. They are also more likely to make responsible choices regarding marriage and children.

Yep, this one is important.. very important IMO

Finally, eliminating victimless crimes will direct energy and resources from the wasteful arms race between cops and drug dealers (for example) and into productive avenues from which society can benefit.

In short, I completely agree

This is my expectation as well.

The enlightened communist (not a marxist communist) recognises that free markets are an intrinsic part of the hoped for free society. Well meaning people react badly to the notion of free markets because crony capitalists are in the habit of falsely proclaiming allegiance to the idea when in fact they really just want state protectionism only for themselves but at the same time only want working class people to pay for that protection.

Inequality is not such an issue really in the absence of poverty. As eran noted poverty is inefficient but in the absence of poverty inequality is not clearly either inefficient or immoral.

In a stateless society operating a truely free market there is unlikely to be any significant poverty. Inequalities will probably exist but won't necessarily be generationally entrenched or cause either economic inefficiency or societal strife.

If these expectations of a free market are incorrect such that systemic problems may occurr such as generationally entrenched extreme poverty then that would likely lead to the resumption of the state or profound disorder.

But I am pretty confident stateless free markets are the way to go.

Agree with that too.

I am wondering though about inequalities...
1. Do you think they are necessary or
2. Not necessary but inevitable

Thinking more, 2 is definately true, man is simply not equal.
If say then inequality is NOT inevitable (which is not true IMO) then is it necessary in order for society to function on all levels.
As an example, being the sewerage plant labourer. Even though this job may be undesirable, it might be sufficiently remunerated so that anyone doing that job would infact be well paid. Remember I'm assuming there is NO inequality.
Now I'm thinking this was a silly exercise

[SolarCross]

I am wondering though about inequalities...
1. Do you think they are necessary or
2. Not necessary but inevitable

Thinking more, 2 is definately true, man is simply not equal.
If say then inequality is NOT inevitable (which is not true IMO) then is it necessary in order for society to function on all levels.
As an example, being the sewerage plant labourer. Even though this job may be undesirable, it might be sufficiently remunerated so that anyone doing that job would infact be well paid. Remember I'm assuming there is NO inequality.
Now I'm thinking this was a silly exercise

Speaking of economic inequality I can't imagine how it could be necessary but it is surely inevitable. Perhaps it is not meaningful at all to talk about inequality versus equality. Better to consider mild inequality versus extreme inequality.
Consider the income distribution of these two hypothetical societies.

Society A - 50, 75, 125, 750 (total income 1000)
Society B - 240, 245, 250, 265 (total income 1000)

Lets say poverty isn't an issue because only an income of 20 units is necessary to stay out of poverty. Which society is better? Well plainly for 3/4 of the people society B is massively much better but even for the top 1/4 Society B is only marginaly worse because an income of 265 is still rich and they are still the richest. Society A is extemely inequal and society B is mildly inequal. (Actually in real life income distributions tend to be even more extremely inequal that society A).

In what way would the income distribution of A be necessary or inevitable? I can't think of anything.

[Eran]

Inequality is an inevitable, though not desirable, consequence of the human condition. People are very different in terms of innate capabilities, acquired skills and habits, life situations and personal preferences. It is implausible that despite those differences, perfect equality will reign.

Poverty is clearly a problem that ought to be addressed by society. Luckily, economic and technological developments have brought the world to a state where objective poverty can easily be eliminated.

Once poverty has been effectively eliminated, equality is still desirable, but is much less urgent. In particular, none of the participants in this discussion seem to believe that (at least in the absence of objective poverty) removing inequality justifies initiation of force.

[SolarCross]

Once poverty has been effectively eliminated, equality is still desirable, but is much less urgent. In particular, none of the participants in this discussion seem to believe that (at least in the absence of objective poverty) removing inequality justifies initiation of force.

As to removing inequality by means of the initiation of force I agree of course that is undesirable. But I wonder what you think about using force to redistribute wealth where the inequality is the consequence of a historical forceful redistribution done by the wealthy to the poor.
To some extent it is broadly true that the gap between the rich and poor came about through the forceful redistribution of wealth from those that became as a result the poor to those that became as a result the rich. In the sense that it is moral to take back from a thief what he has taken from you is it moral to take back the wealth that was taken by the rich?

[mum]

In particular, none of the participants in this discussion seem to believe that (at least in the absence of objective poverty) removing inequality justifies initiation of force.

Ineed

As to removing inequality by means of the initiation of force I agree of course that is undesirable. But I wonder what you think about using force to redistribute wealth where the inequality is the consequence of a historical forceful redistribution done by the wealthy to the poor.
To some extent it is broadly true that the gap between the rich and poor came about through the forceful redistribution of wealth from those that became as a result the poor to those that became as a result the rich. In the sense that it is moral to take back from a thief what he has taken from you is it moral to take back the wealth that was taken by the rich?

I think that in cases where the theft was clear cut and quantifiable this would be desirable. But who would perform such a task ?
I don't think its an issue in the long term if those stolen from do not get their property back, the advantages that would come about from their new society would far outweigh be compensated...Despite the injustice of not being compensated.

I guess that question could be applied in some degree to myself for instance. Sure I would like to get all my tax and lost value (from inflation) back, however I would simply prefer to just see the end of both systems that enforce this. But I am not in poverty...

[Eran]

The question of transition from a long history of injustice to a new society seriously based on it is a difficult one.

The position traditionally espoused by anarcho-capitalists is that property should belong to the person (or group) able to show closest (or most prior) links to it, provided their claim is not based on a demonstrable crime.

This is a fairly (and necessarily) vague criterion, and its translation to reality is unclear and likely to vary.

In some cases, reassignment of property seems highly justified. A British aristocrat (like Prince Charles) who owns vast tracts of land clearly originally acquired through the use of force couldn't expect to remain their owner. Such lands, like state-owned lands, would have to be distributed, ideally, to families who have lived on that very land for generations, or sold to repay debts.

State-owned or sponsored enterprises could transfer to their current employees.

How to dispense of property belonging to companies in the private sector is far less clear. While few of them managed to stay completely clear of entanglement with government, the degree to which their property is ill-gained varies.

One important lesson to learn is from 20th century societies which underwent complete revolutions. Those include, for example, post Nazi Germany, post apartheid South Africa and post Soviet Eastern Europe. In each case, past injustices couldn't fully be accounted for, let alone undone.

In all such cases, reasonable effort has been made to correct the worst of the injustices (e.g. by bringing past leaders to trial), while adopting reconciliation as a primary motif.


In the case of a transition from a state-run economy to a free one, several important characteristics of modern economies are noteworthy.
First, the relative significance of natural resources is quickly declining. Knowledge-based industries, from entertainment and media through computer and software to banking and finance are gaining relative to traditional agriculture and manufacturing. The most valuable resource for knowledge industries, the human mind, is also the one least susceptible to unjust distribution due to historic circumstances.

Second, world economy is growing rapidly. Wealth is continually being created. Over a period of a few decades, most of the wealth in the world will have been thus newly created. In a just society, even if legacy wealth is unjustly distributed, newly-created wealth will tend to go to the right hands. Over time, the echos of the statist past will fade out of significance.

[SolarCross]

eran

Yes it is a difficult question but I like your answer. I found this article on how the english became landless you may like to look at - HOW THE ENGLISH PEOPLE BECAME LANDLESS. It is clear from this how the common englishman was robbed by aristocratic classes through the agency of the state.

I think you are right redistribution would be relatively straight forward for state and aristocratic properties. Aristocratic properties these days though are mostly empty of people so just giving it to residents might not be viable. Giving state properties to state employees is genius - why? Every revolution faces extreme violence from the state as the state and its cronies try to preserve their ill gotten privilege. But this violence is carried out by the police and army which they do because they identify their interests with that of the system. If the revolution effectively offers the police and army ownership of their institutions and allows them to continue their professions as private companies it may be substantially they will identify their interests with the revolution rather than the old order... Any revolution that can divide the states' agencies of force from the state becomes unstoppable.

Possibly the substance of commercial properties would be best left as they are, those that derive their wealth from the state will probably wither along with the state absent that prop. Moreover revolutions of any kind are highly damaging to the overall economy as it is; to keep negative disruption to the economy to a minimum it may be well to let private enterprises alone at least in the initial stages.

However one question, posed by mum, has yet to be answered; who would do the redistribution? Additionaly it may be asked: how could it be that those doing the redistribution wouldn't be corrupted by the process?

[Eran]

I'll get to mum's question.

Before I do though, I want to share my view that the change we are here discussing is likely to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

Our starting point is a democratic society in which opinions can freely be exchange and disseminated. For the new society to be stable, it has to enjoy widespread support. Such widespread support can only be built gradually. In the process, democratic institutions will adapt to changing public opinion. In the process we will see gradual scale-back of state institutions.

I thus envision a gradual change with progressively more and more state functions and state regulations, rules and taxes being scaled back. You can take the views of moderate libertarians like Cato or Ron Paul as an example of an intermediate state of society, with a "nightwatch" minarchy being the penultimate state prior to the final dissolution of government.

The government just prior to final abolition is likely to be quite small, with society already largely adapted to taking care of itself without Big Daddy.

As for the decision-making, just as in the post-abolition, those will be made by arbitration courts broadly considered authoritative by society. There is no single body or organisation that determines which courts are authoritative, just as, for example, there is no single body that determines which English dictionary is authoritative, or which entomologist is authoritative on insect questions.

In the abstract, arbitration courts merely issue opinions. Enforcement agencies rely on those opinions to act, potentially through the use of force. Some decisions may not require any overt use of force - they may be voluntarily obeyed by the losing side to avoid negative reputation, or be presented to an employer or bank who would then facilitate fund transfers.

Enforcement agencies thus "determine" which agencies are authoritative based on their policy regarding which arbitration judgements they would act on. An agency takes a risk when enforcing a judgement. It will thus tend to only rely on those agencies whose judgements are unlikely to be reversed by other agencies. There is a dynamic feedback process which results in both stability and consistency amongst arbitration courts.

At the end of the day, the sensibilities of society will be reflected in the judicial philosophy of arbitration courts. Those are the courts which will determine the disposition of property titles.

[SolarCross]

eran

Regarding state 'enterprises' being taken over by state employees. How do you see these post-state businesses being structured? A concrete scenario:-

A regional police department is essentially a number of police officers and support staff employed by the state plus the police vehicles, tools and buildings owned by the state. Would you see that being reformed as worker's cooperative, a consumer cooperative or auctioned off to the highest bidder to become essentially a privatised company with the private investor owning the vehicles, tools and buildings and employing the staff.

[mum]

I could see it being auctioned off. Perhaps split up into localities and then auctioned seperately. The immediate problem would be that the competition must start from zero, while the ex-police force is already a fully fledged company. In the long term however I don't see this as a problem. I think the biggest obstacle to overcome would be the transition to customer financing.

A better solution would be that prior to the the sale of the police force, competing armed security companies would be allowed to develop, and as funding for the police is scaled back (it is still govt owned) the competing agencies establish themselves in the community as effective service providers.

[Eran]

Would you see that being reformed as worker's cooperative, a consumer cooperative or auctioned off to the highest bidder to become essentially a privatised company with the private investor owning the vehicles, tools and buildings and employing the staff.

That depends on circumstances.

The clearest property that ought to go to ex-government employees is the good name and reputation of the agency in question. Agencies such as FDA, SEC, FAA as well as their state-level equivalents would have huge value as private substitutes to the public function they currently serve. Their capital requirements are modest, and their value is primarily in reputation and know-how of their employees.

It is less clear what the right solution is with respect to capital-rich agencies (e.g. the Air Force or the Navy). While I would want an employee-owned co-op to retain the name, reputation and human know-how, I can see an argument for tax-payers retaining an interest in the vast amounts of money invested in the past. A joint solution whereby ownership is shared between taxpayers and employees, or whereby employees fully own the equity in the new private enterprise, but that enterprise owes money to the taxpayers (e.g. manifested through long-term bonds) could be more appropriate.

In general, the competing claims of taxpayers, government bond-holders, government employees and the country's citizens at large should all be balanced. I don't have a "one-size-fits-all" prescription for how such balancing be best accomplished.

The immediate problem would be that the competition must start from zero, while the ex-police force is already a fully fledged company.

In the context of the evolutionary (not revolutionary) transition I envision, such issues may be moot or greatly reduced, with government functions having been gradually privatised for decades before the state's final dissolution.

In the specific example of a regional police department, many of its responsibilities may have already been privatised (e.g. police patrols to private security firms and crime investigations to private investigators) with the private competitors naturally well-positioned to compete with the final private phase of the former state-police.

Alternatively, competition may evolve gradually (as does private competition to government schools in Sweden, for example) as some localities "shed" their police forces before others. By the time most localities attempt to privatise, several national non-government organisations may already be available to provide local competition to the privatised police.