[ExI] anarchy

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 10 16:48:28 UTC 2016


​If we were starting from square one the above is what I would recommend,​

​but we are very very far from square one so we just have to do the best we
can with what we've got.

 John K Clark

Fantasizing is fun but problems always arise that have been unseen in the
planning.  (Those unknown unknowns.)  What you say might work and it might
be a nightmare of payoffs and corruption; that is, not a lot different from
what we have now, only worse.  Again, I am no student of history, but what
you suggest sounds like Italy around 1500:   clans and their military
enforced things; no overarching gov.  How well did that work?  I suspect
that wars were fairly constant.  Might makes right.

I am against punishment, mostly, for children - if it's the belt kind.
Taking away privileges works much better for many reasons.  But if you want
to get rid of corruption you have to penalize and heavily.  Quick and
devastatingly hard punishment will stop the behavior more quickly than
anything.  Chopping off hands for a bit of shoplifting seems extremely
harsh, but it's the right idea if the wrong method.

Not to re-enter that discussion, but the biggest problem with Wall Street
and collapse of 2008 was that there were few if any penalties, much less
harsh ones.  So why not do it again?  They will.  Oh yes, they will.  The
incentives to do so are billions of dollars.  Measure that against a jail
term of a few years, and probably not for the top people.

On a related note, I read that many companies are getting into finance and
out of providing services and products.  Doesn't sound good, but what do I
know?
Seems private debt is getting worse than national debt.

bill w

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:29 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> One argument seems to settle this issue:  if there is no government of
>> any kind, then there is no police force of any kind.
>> ​ ​
>> If no one can be told what to do or restrained from doing it, then you
>> have chaos and rule of the mighty, who then will tell people what to do.
>> QED
>>
>
>
>> Not necessarily, there are other and probably better ways society could be
> organized
> ​,​
> but
> ​at this late date ​
> getting from here to there would be astronomically difficult and perhaps
> impossible. The idea behind Anarcho-Capitalism
> ​ ​
> is
> ​ ​
> there would still be police and there would still be
> ​ ​
> law, but it would be private police and private law. PPL's (privately
> produced
> ​ ​
> law) in
> ​an ​
> anarchic world would
> ​ ​
> have private protection agencies (PPA's) to
> ​ ​
> back them up. Disputes among PPA's would be settled by an independent
> ​ ​
> arbitrator agreed to by both parties BEFORE the disagreement happened.
> ​ ​
> Something like that can happen today. When companies sign complicated
> ​ ​
> contracts they sometimes also agree on who will arbitrate it if
> differences in interpretation
> ​ ​
> happen
> ​s​
> . Nobody
> ​ ​
> wants
> ​ to
>  get caught up in the slow, expensive court
> ​ ​system
>  run by governments. The arbitrator would be paid by the case,
> ​ ​
> and because he is picked by both sides, it's in his interest to be as just
> as
> ​ ​
> possible. If he favored one side over another or made brutal or stupid
> ​ ​
> decisions he would not be picked again and would need to look for a new
> line
> ​ ​
> of work. Unlike present day judges and juries, justice would have a
> positive
> ​ ​
> survival value for the arbitrator.
> ​ ​
> Today ​a
>  bad judge makes just as much money as a good judge, but a good arbitrator
> makes far more money than a bad arbitrator.
>
> All parties would have a reason to avoid violence if possible. The
> disputing parties would not want to turn their front yard into a war zone,
> and violence is expensive. The successful protection agencies would be more
> interested in making money than saving face. Most of the time this would
> work so I expect
> ​ ​
> the total level of violence to be less than what we have now, but I'm not
> such a utopian as to suggest it will drop to zero. Even when force is not
> used the implicit threat is always there, another good reason to be
> civilized.
>
> I'm not talking about justice only for the rich. If a rich man's PPA makes
> unreasonable demands (beatings, sidewalk justice, I insist on my mother
> being the judge if I get into trouble)  it's going to need one hell of a
> lot of firepower to back it up. That kind of an army is expensive because
> of the hardware needed and because of the very high wages it will need to
> pay its employees for an extremely dangerous job. To pay for all this they
> will need to charge their clients enormous fees severely limiting their
> customer base and that means even higher charges. They could
> ​ ​
> never get the upper hand, because the common man's PPA would be able to
> outspend a PPA that had  outrageous demands and was just for the super
> rich. A yacht cost a lot more than a car, yet the Ford motor Company is
> far richer than all the yacht builders on the planet combined.
>
> No system can guarantee justice to everybody all the time but you'd have
> the greatest chance of finding it in Anarcho
> ​-​
> capitalism. In a dictatorship one man's whim can lead to hell on earth, I
> don't see how 40 million Germans could have
> ​ ​
> murdered 6 million Jews in a Anarcho-capitalistic world. Things
> ​ ​
> aren't much better in a Democracy, 51% can decide to kill the other 49% ,
> nothing even close to that is possible in Anarchy ,even theoretically.
>
> In general, the desire not to be killed is much stronger than the desire
> to kill a stranger, even a Jewish  stranger. Jews  would be willing to pay
> as much as necessary, up to and including their entire net worth not to be
> killed. I doubt if even the most rabid anti Semite would go much beyond 2%.
> As a result the PPA protecting Jews  would be much stronger than the one
> that wants to kill them. In Anarchy, for things that are REALLY important
> to you (like not getting  killed) you have much more influence than just
> one man one vote.
>
> ​If we were starting from square one the above is what I would recommend,​
>
> ​but we are very very far from square one so we just have to do the best
> we can with what we've got.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160610/b986fcb4/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list