Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Big Thread: Anarcho-Capitalism Discussion

94 posts / 0 new
Last post
bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture
Big Thread: Anarcho-Capitalism Discussion
Considering that I just unwittingly threadjacked the Extropian Fabbers thread into Yet Another AnCap Debate, I think it's time we started this thread up here. So, rules: [color=orange]Unless it's related to the game itself (discussions of Extropia, Extropian fabbers, Extropian child-rearing techniques in AF 10, etc) and it's discussing AnCap, move it here or keep it here. People won't earn strikes for inadvertently threadjacking, but it is politely asked that such discussions be moved here so that other threads can continue on their own courses.[/color] Beyond that, I think a starter seed for this thread is in order, so, let's go with a definition of AnCap to kick things off: Anarcho-Capitalism is the youngest of the "anarchist" philosophies, originating in its current form from the writings of Murray Rothbard in the 1960s, who went beyond the usual bounds of the Austrian School of economics and the minarchist philosophy to create Anarcho-Capitalism, a political-economic system that advocated complete laissez-faire capitalism and complete abolition of the state. The proposed system would function via having a number of private service contractors for every necessity, including food, defense and legal functions, in an effort to harness the free market's abilities to drive down costs and raise efficiencies. Instead of laws, people would subscribe to the private judiciaries of their choice for arbitration. Additionally, core and central to the philosophical concept of the system is the Non-Aggression Axiom, conceptualized by Rothbard, which is a voluntary philosophical prohibition against coercive behaviors and initiating force against other individuals or their property. I think that that's a good starter definition from as close to a neutral point of view as I can manage, but I'm undoubtedly missing some things--but that's what the discussion is for. :)

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
Alternative Definitions
Well, from my point of view as a jeune ecole ancap, for which read "extremely heretical by Rothbardian standards, argh, I hate those guys", here's what I consider our core principles to be: Property: We believe in private property. We also believe in non-private property, but it gets that way when its owner makes it so; no appropriation. For the purposes of most ethical arguments, property is considered part of its owner. Consent: All legitimate sophont interaction, including obvs. interaction with other people's property, is done by the informed consent of all parties. Everything else, meaning primarily force and fraud, is verboten and will get you into so much trouble via whichever (private) mechanism we use to ensure that 'round these parts. Contract: You said that you'd do it, you have to do it. No backsies - at least not without the consent of all other parties or a really convincing proof that it's actually impossible and you're really, really sorry. Other than that, arrange things however the heck you want within these parameters, we're not in the business of arranging your lives for you. Although we do have some ideas which we will tell you about endlessly given even slight provocation. -c
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Explanation and suggestion
As one who's become an Anarcho-Capitalist relatively recently, Rothbard is one of my only exposures to the thinking and indeed, a heavy base for me. Perhaps you could elaborate on what "jeune ecole" entails? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ In general, biblio has a point, maybe we should come up with a different name? If for nothing else to stop anarchists from getting pissed at us by association alone.
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
Rothbardians
I should clarify, I don't really have a problem with Rothbard per se, it's just that he has an awful lot of very dogmatic (and loud, which doesn't help with external perceptions either) followers who insist that he's the beginning and the end of ancap thought and absolutely nothing contradicting or varying on his work counts. Which I don't really think is what he had in mind... (And kind of gripes me because I can't help feeling that if you identify as a libertarian/anarchist and are still demanding adherence to the One True Dogma, you've so very missed the point. But so it goes...) And, really, most of what (I call) the jeune ecole entails is just avoiding that - I've learned from Rothbard, but also from lots of other thinkers, and I'm happy to embrace notions from various places about, say, the ethical stature of some animals as not-exactly-property, or things other than literal physical property that have moral/economic weight, or the validity of considerationless contracts, or variant economic systems other than that strain of capitalism that are compatible with what I see as the core values of ancappery, even if and when they contradict his version, or anyone else's version. Distill it down to the essentials, be open to new ideas, don't get trapped by dogma, and quit bein' prescriptivist to other folks, that's pretty much the whole of the thing. Apart from that, we're all over the map, on what we think might work or is worth trying.
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
I see
Well I'm certainly aware that I could be wrong. I call myself anarcho-capitalist because the first time I discovered the thread was on TV Tropes in regards to the planet of Illium. Which, as much as people deride it as being, "just Omega, but cleaner" I honestly would rather live than anywhere in Citadel space, where Council ruling outlaws research into transhuman technologies. What right do they have to say what I can and can't do with my mind or body. "To maintain species purity." They say. Well what if I don't like being human? What if I want to resleeve into a Krogan body? That's more of a rant than a serious statement but I hope you understand where my origin on this is. Following that is light Rothbard reading and various youtube videos, I lack quite a deal of formal education on my own allegiance. I do know what I would NOT call myself a part of, and that's any system where something comes before the freedom of the individual. Be it a nebulous "greater good" dictated by a state or collective, or the will of an autocratic despot. The Extropians appealed to me precisely because they seemed to have a very "go and create" feel to them. Always experimenting, always creating, always pushing further. The Anarchists, sounded a little soap-boxy to me. So convinced that their's is the way to go, that all other systems are either regimes to overthrow or enemies that just happen to be aligned with them. The Commonwealth was just too centrist for me. Yeah they give everyone a "fair" (e.g. arbitrary) amount to invest, save, or otherwise do with as they wish; but why do I need to get that from the state in the first place?
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
Brought over from elsewhere
"Hoarseman" wrote:
think you may have a logical paradox you need to resolve. You seem, and I could be wrong, to adopt the position that in an-cap societies that people will behave rationally. Meaning that they will voluntarily give up resources to reward innovation. Then shortly thereafter you seem, and again I could be misunderstanding your point, to hold the position that an-cols would behave irrationally, not rewarding via Rep the person who did the mucky job with a greater Rep increase than the light labor job. The paradox springs from rationality. Either we assume people will act rationally, and project the consequences from that, or we assume they will not and project the consequences. Am I misunderstanding something? I didn't see a supported argument that would necessarily require one group to arrive at rationality and the other to necessarily to end at irrationality.
Yeah, no, you're not misunderstanding there and you're absolutely right that I can't really argue it in both directions at once. My bad; arguing in real time and losing track of where I am. If I'm going to postulate that transhuman techniques let us build more rationally self-interested people, then obviously that benefit accrues to ancol rep economies every bit as much as it does to ancap IP systems -- especially since I also want to be able to say that it applies to ancap rep economies... O'course, I might argue some superiority for the contractual ancap model inasmuch as the contract, etc., serve as a reminder that, hey, you do owe something (be it cash or rep) to the people who keep your infrastructure running, it being terribly easy to start getting forgetful and making assumptions about such things that're just there all the time and only come to your attention when they don't work, but on the other hand, it's also not hard to imagine people on an ancol habitat sponsoring a periodic "Bump the hard-working lads, lasses, and others helping out down in life-support, cause they deserve it" Day either, so I guess that one pretty much comes out as a wash. -c
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
I imagine a lot of rep boosts
I imagine a lot of rep boosts are automatic. Either people set up periodic pings with their muses for things like air and food, or the hab computers have it set up that "we automatically boost your rep by x for making y contribution to the community". It would not be unreasonable to assume that hab AIs will adjust these numbers up and down in near real time according to labor supply and demand. After all, a rep economy does not mean that free markets will completely vanish. Whereas for things like art or blueprints, the computers might auto-ping the creator each time they're used (or enjoyed or w/e). I feel like most of the rep system would be automated, with users only actively affecting each others rep when a good or service is exceptionally good or bad.
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
I can't say I disagree with
I can't say I disagree with any of that in particular, and indeed I'm pretty similar at the beginning. It's just the dogma thing, and means/end confusion, really, that I harp on somewhat because... ...well, let me give you an example.
Steel Accord wrote:
The Commonwealth was just too centrist for me. Yeah they give everyone a "fair" (e.g. arbitrary) amount to invest, save, or otherwise do with as they wish; but why do I need to get that from the state in the first place?
You may have heard a similar idea being kicked around in real-life politics. The whole "basic income" concept, in which we abolish the entire welfare system and all its benefits and breaks and allowances and means-testing and so forth, and simply send everyone in the country a check every month. I love this idea. No more humiliating rituals for poor people to dance through to prove they're poor, needy, and desperate enough to deserve help. (And all the bureaucrats who used to do that have to go get real, productive jobs.) No more homelessness and starvation, 'cause you always get The Income, which might not put the roof over your head and the food on your plate you'd like, but will put some kind of them there. No more minimum-wage laws distorting the market and disemploying people, or bizarre negative feedback effects when means-tested benefits cut out, 'cause even if your job only pays a pittance, you'll always make The Income plus pittance, and so even if you can only get a really crappy job, it's still always a net positive. Any way you look at it - as insurance so single bad decisions can't take over your life, as a chance to educate yourself out of low-income work, as the opportunity to take entrepreneurial risks without having to risk everything up to and including your neck, it looks pretty shiny. Now, I am an ancap, so I don't believe in funding this sort of thing out of taxes, inasmuch as illegitimate, coercive, daylight robbery, etc., etc., except in the very limited sense that it would still be better than what we have now, so, ugh, icky political compromise until the revolution comes. What I have argued for, on the other hand, is that a mechanism like this that has so many benefits in terms of both not letting people starve and in terms of potentially turning them into the creative, innovative, entrepreneurial type of chaps that we all benefit from having around is a good idea, and thus when we are sketching out our castle-in-the-air ideas of what an ancap society would look like, a voluntary body that people could agree to contract some of their income to and which would use it in this manner - without breaking any of the ancap ethics - would be a jolly nice idea, what, and absolutely in everyone's enlightened self-interest? For mentioning this sort of idea, I've been called a very bad not good communist socialist parasite-coddling heretic things-I-can't-even-pronounce-but-sure-weren't-complimentary so-and-so and pretty much excommunicated from certain notionally ancap-type communities. And those are the people I have a problem with. I mean, what I want for everyone, fundamentally, is a big 'ol helping of individual liberty with wealth on the side and a sprinkling of awesome on top. I'm an ancap because I think that that's the best way to get us there, but if someone else has a good idea, I've got no problem splicing its compatible bits into my ancap-ism. If I start throwing away or refusing to consider different ways of doing things because they're not my personal pure version of anarchocapitalism, then I'm putting the means over the ends, and it's the ends that are important, yeah?
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Uncertainty
I see your point. It's put rather well. . . . . So why do I get this annoying red flag going off in my head? Is it just that it sounds far too similar to guaranteeing results? Which doesn't make any sense, as it's only guaranteeing stability and therefore opportunity. Maybe it's because, in my life experience, the only one's who offer (for a given value of "offer") that kind of service are state functionaries. Perhaps I could get behind such a service if it wasn't quite as centralized as the Titanians have it. For instance, if it was yet another market for different firms to compete in, by offering services and benefits to those that choose to donate money; then I would have the freedom to choose who I trusted my money with if I thought the others weren't doing enough to support the impoverished or were corrupt. You know . . . like we have right now! "I mean, what I want for everyone, fundamentally, is a big 'ol helping of individual liberty with wealth on the side and a sprinkling of awesome on top." That is by far the most ideal view of the human lifestyle I've ever heard. "then I'm putting the means over the ends, and it's the ends that are important, yeah?" I disagree. My personal moral compass is very deontological. A noble end does not justify an immoral method. If what you're doing seems questionable, question it. Question it until you get an answer, and if that answer still leaves your soul wanting, you're probably on the wrong side. It's that very line of thinking that made me leave behind notions of joining the military. (That and it didn't seem like my peers had any ideals of honor, integrity, or respect.)
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture
*munches popcorn* Please,
*munches popcorn* Please, continue! I love where this discussion is going. :) As for your deontological moral compass, SA, I can see that point, and I'll brutally fold an old koan in ways that it won't appreciate in order to make you ask some more questions: If doing things in the wrong way for the right ends is like building a fine house on sand, what question is the right question to ask? Is the right question to ask "where should I build my house so that the foundation is stable and won't be undermined by shifting sands?" or is it "is there a way to stabilize the sand so that it will not shift?" Because, either way, until you pick which question to answer, you're still without a house. :)

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Answer
Well I'm not sure if I'm picking up the spirit of your question, but I would perhaps build a boat-house.
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
OK, an-caps. I have a
OK, an-caps. I have a question that just occurred to me. Where the hell does the money come from? Who backs it? Because I think the free market would be pretty terrible at selecting the 'best money provider'. Is more money ever created? Currency has historically always been a public good provided by government. Can the free market handle its own lifeblood?
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Hoarseman Hoarseman's picture
Historically there have been private currencies
I wouldn't strictly call myself an an-cap but historically there have been "bank notes" that were just notes issued by private banks backed by "something", company script, and tokens representing a pre-purchased good/service. Some of those were good, others dramatically less so. For the modern equivalent, think about giving someone a Starbucks gift card for painting your house. Now if they don't like Starbucks they may insist on federally backed dollars, but if they go there every day the Starbucks card is just as good to them. In the an-caps economy people would presumably consider different currencies more valuable than others and adjust prices accordingly. In the modern world that would be to complicated for rapid business but the EP universe has muses and rapid computer negotiation so I think it would certainly be viable. As an in game option, characters could be payed in "Big Jims Bank of H20" bank notes only to have a unexpected iceteroid be found nearby devaluing the currency they intended to use to accomplish their actual mission, or there could be a maintenance failure resulting in a major water loss. Now using water backed notes is a good way to get robbed as there value skyrockets, etc.
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Example
Good examples Haorseman. Another modern example would be the emerging bitcoin. No government prints it, but more and more people are accepting it as currency. Really "money" can be anything with an agreed representative value of effort. Like how Caps are treated in the world of Fallout. No one uses bills. The government they represent no longer exists. (Glory Hallelujah!) People just started using caps. Actually a fairly good example of an open currency economy is New Vegas. All casinos there accept caps, but just as many also accept pre-war money, NCR bills, and even Legion drachmas. Again, the point of a completely free-market economy is "the individual before all else" so it comes down to what whatever person you are in transaction with is willing to accept or deal as payment. Hence why Extropia is a transitional economy. Some are more comfortable with hard currency, others use the rep system.
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
The free market offers hugs to everyone!
Steel Accord wrote:
"then I'm putting the means over the ends, and it's the ends that are important, yeah?" I disagree. My personal moral compass is very deontological. A noble end does not justify an immoral method. If what you're doing seems questionable, question it. Question it until you get an answer, and if that answer still leaves your soul wanting, you're probably on the wrong side.
Not quite what I meant. Let me try this again. I also have some firm deontological positions, but by and large I have those incorporated into my ends. If my ends include "a society free of coercion", then that obviously puts a whole lot of schemes off-limits for simple reasons of non-contradiction; you can't coerce your way free. But there are a lot of people - not just ancaps, by any means - who confuse their tools with what they're trying to build. Because of where we came from, philosophically speaking, we have a lot of traditional capitalist tools in our toolkit - which is fine, where they work and do the best job, in accordance with our ethics. But as long as they're in accordance with our ethics and get us where we want to go, we shouldn't reject new tools just because they're insufficiently like our old ones. Open-source, for example, isn't traditionally capitalist in organization, and yet it demonstrably works to provide and allocate at least some goods, and is in complete accordance with core ancap ethics. Should we turn it down? And where gift economies, or rep economies, or non-corporate business organizations, or types of community property, or basic income schemes redesigned around voluntary principles as per above, or whatever are concerned, that also fit into our basic ethical schema, and may do certain tasks very well indeed - should we throw those out from the beginning because they're insufficiently "cap"? I say no. What defines an ancap is the core ethic - property, self-ownership, consent, the obligation of contracts, etc. Apart from those necessary essentials, the free market is big enough to embrace all kinds of ideas - after all, it's a free market in ideas, too, and it's a pretty poor entrepreneur who throws out new ideas just 'cause he doesn't like the smell! But there are a lot of people who disagree with me on that point.
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
Erulastant wrote:OK, an-caps.
Erulastant wrote:
OK, an-caps. I have a question that just occurred to me. Where the hell does the money come from? Who backs it? Because I think the free market would be pretty terrible at selecting the 'best money provider'. Is more money ever created? Currency has historically always been a public good provided by government. Can the free market handle its own lifeblood?
That's not strictly true. Whether or not money turned up before government is... well, a controversial question, so let's not get into that, but the original forms of it weren't provided by government, as they tended to be commodity (intrinsic-value) currencies - gold, silver, and such. Many governments did take on the useful function of making them available in convenient standardized chunks, but on the other hand, so did various merchant leagues and associations, too. (Lest anyone think I'm being too pro-govt. here, let me also take a moment to note that it also didn't take them long to figure out the "not actually as much gold in this coin as its face value" trick and its successors...) And indeed, such commodity currencies keep being invented, even in places where governments would prefer there not to be currencies at all: Prisons and prisoner of war camps often use cigarettes as money, sometimes developing surprisingly sophisticated financial institutions based on the cigarette standard. On the US frontier, pelts, nails, tobacco, all served this sort of function. Of course, commodity money has well-known and pretty gross disadvantages. (So does fiat money, but it's not like you fix its problems by returning to a system with other problems. Sorry, goldbugs.) And the historical examples involving fiat money are, indeed, usually governmental - but that, I suspect, is principally because it arrived on the scene after governments had generally arrogated the monopoly on coining money to themselves. What gives fiat money its value is its artificial scarcity - and I don't see any reason in principle why only governments can manage one of those. As for selecting a best money provider - well, people do seem, as evidenced by the flight from bad currencies to good that we see occurring during episodes of gross currency mismanagement, the growing up of commodity currencies and black markets in hard currencies in countries with, shall we say, unusually soft currencies, and so on and so forth, pretty capable of finding sound money for themselves even when officialdom is trying hard to stop them from doing it. I'm pretty confident (although not having run the experiment) that an ancap free currency market wouldn't take long to stabilize around a relatively small number of well-managed currencies. [I'm also pretty confident that small experimental currencies would appear and disappear all the time, probably along with oddnesses like dogmatic Randians trying to make the gold standard stand up in the age of pervasive asteroid mining - good luck with that - but, hey, freedom's messy.] -c
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Not me
I would extend that logic to the entire Autonomist Alliance. That's why I'm typically so confused at the fury the traditional Anarchists through at us, "Aren't we all on the same side?" I would ask. As, according to my definition, the Autonomists all reject dogmatic and coercive governance in favor of experimental systems of living. The only difference being in where we draw the line and how we facilitate the improbably varied lifestyles that result in it.
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture
I'll hold my tongue on the
I'll hold my tongue on the actual usability of Bitcoin as a stable, functional currency, will comment that citing a video game for an example of a non-governmental backed currency is fundamentally flawed, because there is an organization that is defining the value of the currency in-game--the game designers are saying how much caps are worth, afterall--and will also toss this article into the conversation on finances as well: [url=http://boingboing.net/2014/03/18/how-a-coffee-order-chatbot-tur.html]How A Coffee-order Chatbot turned into a Bank[/url] (original article under the spoiler)
Spoiler: Highlight to view
[url=http://royrapoport.blogspot.ca/2011/05/coffee-and-its-effects-on-feature... and its Effects on Feature Creep[/url] Starting in mid-2004 and until the end of 2006, I worked at a small DNS and DHCP software company called Nominum. These days Nominum offers both software and services, but at its core what has allowed it to be as successful as it has been is the fact that its development group is, singularly, the most brilliant and personally committed to the company group of developers I've ever seen. Most of the developers with whom I worked had been there from just about the beginning of the company. It was the sort of environment where my VP was still doing the Costco shopping (though admittedly she enjoyed it), everyone knew every other employee's spouse's name, and we got together to have our dogs play. That's less relevant, however. The two introductory bits of information necessary for this posting are: Nominum at the time had tons of RPI alumni, and because of this had implemented an RPI-sourced chat system named Lily. Lily is more IRC-like than Yahoo Messenger-like in the sense that it's largely oriented toward offering multi-person chats (in IRC these are channels; in Lily these are called discussions); you can also send private messages, but it's typically used less often; Lily was very heavily used (one of the earliest lessons I had to learn was that if it was 1AM and my boss just sent me a private message asking me a question or asking me to take care of something, it was OK to say "actually, I was about to go to sleep; I'll deal with it in the morning." It took me some time to learn this lesson); We worked approximately a mile away from Starbucks, and we went for coffee every day. The problem was that the coffee ordering process was just terribly inefficient. At some point in the day, someone would pop up on the "coffee" discussion and send out a broadcast "coffee?" to all interested parties. At that point, people would have to say on the discussion what they want (e.g. "I'll have my venti non-fat 180 degrees vanilla latte with two equals, extra squirt of vanilla, and whipped cream." No, seriously, that was my drink at the time), the person who was volunteering to go would then write the order down (with a pen and a piece of paper), they'd go to Starbucks where the barista would have to decipher their handwriting, and make the drinks. Typically, the person who went to pick up would pay for the whole order and then would try to keep track of how much each person owed them (people did not often have the exact cost of their drink available). It doesn't take too many iterations of this to get a little sick of the inefficiency. Lily was really easy to interact with -- it was a telnet-based interface, and we weren't doing any encryption. Writing a bot to interact with Lily proved to be a trivial task. I called it Caffeinator. By the end of the first weekend of development (this was, obviously, a rather extra-curricular sort of effort), Caffeinator could see that ordering was opened, then listen to people saying "I'd like X," from which it would create a shopping list which it could post as a web page. When ordering was closed, the person doing the shopping could visit the web page and print it out. The order takers were happy. Starbucks was happy. Success. It was still painful to have to say "I'll have my venti non-fat 180 degrees vanilla latte with two equals, extra squirt of vanilla, and whipped cream" every day. So it was easy to have Caffeinator start keeping track of your favorite. Saying "my favorite gnfl is a grande non-fat latte," for example, meant you could next time simply say "I'll have my gnfl" and Caffeinator would note you wanted a grande non-fat latte." In rapid succession, we added the ability for it to optimize ordering for the Starbucks drink carriers (Starbucks drink carriers accommodate four drinks; ideally, all four drinks are similarly sized for balance, but at minimum it's preferred to have two pairs of identically-sized drinks). We also added the ability to order for other people (so if I'm in John's cube when coffee ordering is open, John could say "Roy will have his gnfl") and the ability to define other people's drinks, if they let you (yes, I implemented coffee drink definition ACLs). And that was still not that big of a deal. It all sort of made sense. In hindsight, it was probably right around the time that I implemented debt tracking into Caffeinator that I should have taken a break from enhancing it and reconsidered whether feature creep had gone way too far. Remember the part where someone comes back with your drink and you find out you don't have the $4.15 you owe them? It's annoying. So after a particularly fun weekend, suddenly debts could be declared to Caffeinator. Obviously, the potential for mischief when you can say "John owes me $4.15" is high, so the first implementation required people to declare their own debt ("I owe Roy $4.15."). Of course, I also had to implement debt repayment ("John paid me $4.15"). The next implementation allowed for a proposed debt ("John owes me $4.15," which would result in Caffeinator telling you "John says you owe them $4.15. If you agree, send me a message including this key: 'xxxasdfasdf325'"). Then, of course, I got curious about the total balance of debt/credit and so had Caffeinator report your TCNW (Total Caffeinator Net Worth) -- your total credits minus your total debts. It didn't take long to see some people's TCNW fluctuate way more highly than simply coffee ordering could account for, and realize Caffeinator became the default way in which social monetary debts were being tracked. Your coworker with Amazon Prime order something for you? "I owe Matt $88.95." Once the network of debt and credit became saturated enough, it turned out that most people had dozens of people with whom they carried either a Caffeinator debt or a Caffeinator credit, and I came up with a way to allow people to simplify their credit/debt situation by reassigning debt. Imagine Jim owes you $10, and you owe Bob $10. Well, that's easy. Tell Caffeinator "reassign $10 from Jim to Bob" and suddenly Jim owed Bob $10, and you were out of the picture. Heck, two people owe you $5 and you owe four people $2.50 each? You can eliminate six credit/debt relationships at once. Of course, this being an environment full of mischief, the next thing we had to deal with was people gaming the system just for the sake of annoying others. Bob owes you $1? Well, declare that you owe twenty people $.05 each, then reassign $.05 of Bob's debt to each of these people. Suddenly, these twenty people find Bob owes them $.05 for no particular reason and Bob's really unhappy with you. My last enhancement to Caffeinator was to allow people to opt out of debt reassignment. That seemed to stop most of the gaming. And that's how I set out to simplify ordering Starbucks and created an internal banking system.
Beyond that, let me clarify my question on building a house on sand, then: you have found an end result that you want, which is a house in a particular location, with a particular design. This is comparable to a particular mode of society, such as the vision presented by Cerebrate of what he(?) wants for everyone. But, when surveying the site, you find that the house would be unstable due to the sand it would be built upon--the foundation is unstable and would surely fail, causing the house to collapse--or, in this metaphor, the society would fail due to some initially unforeseen factor. So, therefore the question is, since you want to build this perfect house here, where the view is spectacular, do you accept that that is not possible and move someplace else to build your perfect house where it won't be undermined, but the view is just not as good (compromising your efforts to create that ideal society by bowing to reality, such as by, for example, accepting a lower standard of living), or do you say "screw the sand, I'm staying here, I'm building my perfect house here, with my perfect view, what do I have to do to keep my house from collapsing?"--or, in this metaphor, asking what Cerebrate is asking: what tools do I have to use in order to achieve my goal of a wonderful society as I have envisioned it?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

templariomaster templariomaster's picture
Money in an-cap society comes
Money in an-cap society comes from the voluntary and social acception of coins, to think about ancapia(the utopia of ancaps) you have to always think about 2 things. NAP(non-agression-principle) and voluntarysm. So in extropia, most people would use normal coins because the bussiness model there is to offer whats illegal in other part, so much people agreed on using a universal coin because that brings comerce. But, would you find another kind of coins? Of course, in ancapia there would be someone looking to create a new financiation model with coins which offers somekind of improvement over the rest(competency is very important in ancapia). So lets say that you create a business model where your money is much more correlated about the opinion of the comunity rather than how you directly make money, such system might attract some attention from anarchist that now can converse their reputation in credits, inconformist that always look for something to make then different from the rest and if enought people agree to give services or products for those coins there would be a new form of economy. IF they agree, if your coin is underrated or insecured people wouldnt agree to trade anything with you thats voluntarysm.
MAD Crab MAD Crab's picture
A brief aside, if you will. I
A brief aside, if you will. I'm admittedly fuzzy on a lot of things with ancap, but one of them that sticks out most to me is this whole notion of hired justices. There is a problem here that I just don't see a good resolution to. What happens when two people in conflict bring their two justice companies into conflict, and neither is willing to give? As far as I can tell it leads to a small civil war.
templariomaster templariomaster's picture
MAD Crab wrote:A brief aside,
MAD Crab wrote:
A brief aside, if you will. I'm admittedly fuzzy on a lot of things with ancap, but one of them that sticks out most to me is this whole notion of hired justices. There is a problem here that I just don't see a good resolution to. What happens when two people in conflict bring their two justice companies into conflict, and neither is willing to give? As far as I can tell it leads to a small civil war.
War is expensive, so there would be sanctions instead, and you better pay those sanctions because if people gets to know that you didnt pay your sanction that a third party(private arbiter) gived to you they will undestand that is dangerous to make business with you because you dont agree with contracts(you would have signed a contract mediated by an arbiter which said that in case of problems the arbitor would resolve the question by interpretating the contract and the conditions of the issue, and you agreed in such contract that you would do what the arbiter says whether you like or not)
MAD Crab MAD Crab's picture
Sanctions to whom? The two
Sanctions to whom? The two justice providers don't answer to anybody, do they? And everybody breaks contracts (or right now, laws) every once and a while. Look at oil companies, they get hit for breaking laws all the time, yet people still deal with them. Because 99% of the time, it's profitable. I'm not seeing how ancap would be different.
templariomaster templariomaster's picture
Sanctions comes to judged
Sanctions comes to judged party. If they break contracts, they have the little problem of lost of credibility, or even breaking the NAP(which in ancapia is serious), so why would you make business with someone that has clear fame of always breaking his word or never accomplishing his contract? If people dont believe in what you do, even if you are best cupcake seller out there, someone is going to come and fill that credibility hole with his trustable service, which might be of lower quality but much more secure. Always think that in ancapia, there is charity as a form of altruism or marketing but there is also competition... BIG competition, if there is small hole in the market for profit, people will fight to get in there filling the hole in the best way possible. That competition is applied to justice, private arbiters have to remain neutral because in the case of two big companies with an issue have to make an agreement, they're not going to hire an arbiter that was corrupt in the past so the oponent cant win by buying him, so is the market and the people who looks which arbiter should be hired. And that example dont count, states let them pass laws and avoid sanctions so goverment and oil companies can keep their monopoly working, actively discouraging any competitors from entering or doing bussiness right because the state regulations forbide so.
MAD Crab MAD Crab's picture
Again, that sounds ok in
Again, that sounds ok in theory, but completely fails when you look at how people act. The things you are saying sound exactly like a fully libertarian system, which only works if every person is a fully rational actor. It has been proven, time and time again that people are _not_ rational actors. People stick with a known provider of poor service instead of switching to the new and (hopefully) better startup. They ignore problems until the problems directly impact them, even though it was obvious in advance that they would. We form groups of us vs them for the silliest things; hell, people get upset over whether you drink coke or pepsi! To go back to your arguments, who is being judged? Are you saying that each party gets sanctioned by the opposing justice provider? Then aren't the parties going to complain to their justice provider about an unjust sanction? Right back where we started. And this isn't a question of 'always breaking contracts,' either. Maybe these two people were model extropians until this point, and some argument has spiraled out of control. As for the contractors remaining neutral, how dare you say that RightWay (tm) has broken any contracts! That is all slander from our competitors over at StrongArm (tm). And nobody can say otherwise, since both companies probably HAVE started rumors about each other (again, people are not nice and rational) and since neither company answers to any third party.
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
You can't fight in here! This is the war room!
MAD Crab wrote:
A brief aside, if you will. I'm admittedly fuzzy on a lot of things with ancap, but one of them that sticks out most to me is this whole notion of hired justices. There is a problem here that I just don't see a good resolution to. What happens when two people in conflict bring their two justice companies into conflict, and neither is willing to give? As far as I can tell it leads to a small civil war.
To get it out of the way up front, that is an acknowledged possible failure mode, yes, just as it is when two countries have, um, irreconcilable differences. But here're three reasons why we think it's unlikely to work out that way in practice: 1. Wars are expensive. Like, stupidly expensive. If there's ever been a profitable war in history, I'm not aware of it - and that's also why you don't generally find businesses getting into these things. States have an advantage when it comes to warmaking - they can run up all the losses they want without it biting them in the bankruptcy. The guys running the PPLs, on the other hand (which, in most theoretical ancap models, are separate from the hired judges) presumably have some business sense and don't want to get into the loss-making war game, so they almost certainly have agreements with their customers requiring them to submit to arbitration when there's a conflict - remember, PPLs are security providers, not private armies - and cross-agreements with other PPLs for handling situations where there're conflicts in a reasonably amicable manner. It's in no-one's enlightened self-interest to escalate. [If you have access to a copy of Deep Beyond from the Transhuman Space line, there's a good example of one way that this sort of thing might work on p. 85-87.] (This is why, I suspect, the people who will have trouble getting PPL coverage are exactly the sort of people who are prone to start fights and unwilling to compromise, 'cause that causes costs for the PPL and runs your premiums right up, until they start deciding that you're too much trouble to bother with... ...which in turn encourages customers to, well, not be conflict-escalating dicks.) 2. Wars are also messy, and tend to spill over. Meaning that if you let it escalate this far, you're going to have all kinds of third parties suing your ass off for collateral damage, and possibly other previously-uninvolved PPLs shooting at you to protect their clients - and this is a predictable outcome. Which is to say that on Extropia, for example, if you run a rogue PPL that starts this sort of thing, then you run an extremely high risk of the Extropia Association of Responsible Security Providers deciding that rounding you and your lads up and throwing you out the airlock for gross and sundry violations of the non-aggression principle and miscellaneous third-parties' rights is exactly what they ought to do today. 3. Almost all proposals for ancap law are really, really simple, at their base. Fit-on-a-page simple. Unlike legal systems with a million laws maybe 10% of which are enforced consistently, etc., etc., it ought to be much, much harder to construct a conflict under ancap law that has multiple obviously correct answers, especially since people who need some sort of specialized law set-up will be specifying that in advance in something like the jurisdiction clauses you see sometimes today. Your PPL won't defend you from a judgment when you're in the wrong, because that turns them into a rogue that's starting a bunch of undesirable escalation, and then see (2). All of which is to say that while polycentric, we expect that the voluntary law-enforcement business community will have ways to police itself for rogues and bad actors, and given that, we don't expect to see inter-PPL violence at any greater frequency than, say, organizations deciding to shoot it out with the police here and now. -c
bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture
Another question I have that
Another question I have that I've never had answered in a satisfactory manner is how does AnCap prevent oligarchical trusts and business cabals from forming? If the core concept of the free market is competition to provide the best services possible, at the lowest prices possible, how does AnCap prevent a number of well-connected businessmen from deciding that they've had enough of this competition business and clandestinely agree to cooperate for each others' benefit, and not the benefit of the consumer? When these well-connected businessmen realize that they could leverage their capabilities to go against the very core concept of AnCap, and use their combined leverage to commit economic aggression on others in an effort to gain control and power? Since they are not acting with a profit motive, but are instead willing to sacrifice profit for a power motive, they are embedded in the system of AnCap but are acting against its very ideals (in a similar fashion as how a democracy that votes to abolish its protections against authoritarianism will quickly fall apart into despotism), and I don't see any mechanism by which a business cabal--say, of the consumer protection groups--could be prevented from doing a great deal of damage, perhaps a fatal level of damage, to an AnCap society. There are simply no checks or balances against that sort of behavior in what I've seen so far.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
No anti-trust laws doesn't mean no anti-trust rules
(A quick parenthetical note first: because this is related to the monopoly problem, let me point up first the distinction between challengeable and unchallengeable monopolies. By and large, ancaps are fine with the first and down on the second - because so far as we're concerned, if Standard Oil has a monopoly because it's just that awesome at doing its job, but Distinctly Nonstandard Oil can still start up and try to compete any time it likes, we're fine with that. Monopoly isn't mala in se. It's only when it starts maneuvering to actively close its competitors out of the market by means other than being better at what it does that we have a problem with it. So, y'know, I would expect no-one on Extropia to have a problem if Ariel's Splishy-Splashy H2O Company, Inc., is the only water supplier on Extropia if they're competent, the water's cheap, and no-one thinks they can profit by competing with them. It's only if they start to run up the price of water and run competitors out of business that anyone'll care.) So. To a certain extent, what you need in order to really leverage this sort of trust/cartel arrangement is one of those unchallengable monopolies. (Since it's very hard to get absolutely everyone who is and will be in the business in on your dealings - especially since, in the short and medium term, there's good personal profit in it for them in screwing your cartel over. But even aside from that, in any reasonably sized economy, you almost certainly can't lock in all the defectors or potential defectors.) So in practice, what most of these people do is turn to their friendly local monopoly on force, buy some legislators, and keep the competition out that way. Pick your method: from as obvious as the explicit Missouri mover cartel, the grandfathered regulation exemptions, special deals for local telcos, the big-tax-breaks-for-cartel-members so no-one can afford to compete, or just have the upstarts audited repeatedly by the IRS, etc., etc., ad naus. But you can't do any of that in an ancap society. Sure, you can hire a PPL, but they're there for defense and law enforcement, not aggression, and they also know what happens to PPLs who go rogue and break the whole consent/non-aggression rule by trying to enforce your special law on other people who didn't agree to it. (See above post.) So that won't work. So instead, you hire a bunch of mercenaries or plain old unemployed leg-breakers and have them run your competition out of business, old-school. Which is when the PPLs of your competitors, and quite possibly those of their workers, and their customers for that matter - and, if you're unlucky, the whole Extropian Association of Reasonable Security Providers who don't approve of you trying to start a war - have them rounded up and thrown out the airlock for gross violations of one of the few absolutely unbreakable rules that ancap societies have. And then, if you're lucky, sit you down with a judge for a nice discussion about exactly how much of your company their clients are getting by way of compensation for your unprovoked attack. So that won't work either, and honestly, I very much doubt anyone'd be dumb enough to try it in the first place. Of course, there're also more subtle ways to get conspiratorial - like, for example but not limited to, the Silicon Valley CEOs wage-limiting conspiracy. Those are much harder to deal with than anything so crude and obvious as the above. I'd venture to say, though, that most of the factors that lead to those falling apart are still operative in ancap societies, because they largely don't get caught because of explicit investigations by assorted regulatory bodies, but because secret conspiracies are hard and the people running them screw up. Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead, and all that. Or they trust the wrong person to be crooked. Or they piss someone off enough to blow the deal. Something like that - and then the regulators sit up and take notice. This is why I talk up other institutions I think integrate extremely well into the ancap whole - to provide the alternative to those regulatory bodies for this phenomenon to plug in to. Reputation networks, transparency, sousveillance, "publically" funded whistleblower-reward groups... (Although, honestly, you could equally have a self-funded whistleblower-reward group just by shorting hard the stock of the company whose CEO and the evidence against him is about to hit "Shyster of the Month" all across the Extropia mesh. Hmm.) ...and so forth. Try this sort of thing in an ancap society and you may not have to worry about the SEC, but by the time the lawsuits have all been settled and the stock price has finished plummeting (in a society of people who largely, one presumes, carry ancap memes, this sort of thing is even less popular than it is here) and your more honest yet happily opportunist competitors get done spinning up the "Buy Saturnine Ring Water - the HONEST drop for HONEST businessmen" meme-campaigns, it should be at least as bloody. Probably more so. -c
bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture
Alright. I'll buy that more
Alright. I'll buy that more than the previous special pleading explanation that just foisted the failure mode off onto the for-profit consumer protection groups and for-profit contract writers. I still think that issues like the Silicon Valley wage-fixing issues would have the potential to do tremendous damage, and that evolutionary pressure to be the most conniving, scheming bastard would rapidly run the idiots out of business, as you suggested that they would, but that would just leave the ones best capable of manipulating the system to their advantage left, without worries of having to deal with their competitors in the empire-building paradigm. And, as they're the most capable and are devoted to their own power at the expense (literally) of others, they're a very real threat--and, as the saying goes, evil only needs to triumph once. If they could bring the entire intricate structure down, reassembling it would be tricky in the aftermath. Additionally, one other point: the entire thing depends on a level of tech and ability that enables easy entry into any economic field so as to easily create competitors. Areas where a considerable amount of start-up capital, tech or expertise or all of the above is needed--like, say, gas mining from a gas giant--allow for considerable more leeway in how far an abusive monopoly can go in milking their profits from their consumers.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Hoarseman Hoarseman's picture
A larger perspective
Something to keep in mind is that habitats compete with each other. If, as you said, evil only needs to win once, then it has successfully "taken over" a habitat or community either physically or in the "Who runs Bartertown?" sense. Given the problems with covering up something on that scale it seems probable that other Habs and communities would quickly become aware of the situation. Once this occurs there are several likely responses. To avoid doing business with them, after all you just saw what happens to people who deal with them. Join in and try to replicate the model used, this is likely to fail as everyone else will be wise to whatever techniques were used. Active opposition, might happen if the conspirators adversely effected outside groups. Finally, general apathy, while also filing away the techniques used so they can be avoided in the future. In the end those kind of conspiracies are inefficient. Profitable in the short and medium term but the weight of suspicion and the necessary expenditure of time and resources to maintain control would almost certainly weigh the conspiracy down. As a side note, depending on how public contracts are such conspiracies might be very hard to hide. If a similar wage fixing conspiracy occurred in the EP 'verse as in Silicon valley you could simply compare similar groups in other Habs. If one had artificially depressed wages then it should show up as a pattern, also the movement of workers away from the conspiratorial Hab is very likely. We are talking about Hypercorps, not Megacorps, they run very light on infrastructure and personnel so it is much harder to artificially limit a type of work to a particular region. This is not to say that such a conspiracy could not take place, just that, like evil only having to win once; there only has to be one person who says the wrong thing or lets slip a critical secret to expose an entire conspiracy. Like a lot of things it would probably not be to hard to start, and be quiet successful at first. However, as I see way to often in the the modern world, everybody skimps on maintenance, and when you have an illegal conspiracy that is a quick route to discovery.
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
bibliophile20 wrote:I still
bibliophile20 wrote:
I still think that issues like the Silicon Valley wage-fixing issues would have the potential to do tremendous damage, and that evolutionary pressure to be the most conniving, scheming bastard would rapidly run the idiots out of business, as you suggested that they would, but that would just leave the ones best capable of manipulating the system to their advantage left, without worries of having to deal with their competitors in the empire-building paradigm. And, as they're the most capable and are devoted to their own power at the expense (literally) of others, they're a very real threat--and, as the saying goes, evil only needs to triumph once. If they could bring the entire intricate structure down, reassembling it would be tricky in the aftermath.
I will certainly agree that these types would be a problem, and that the ancap system isn't immune from them, but I'd also say that these types, the highly skilled bad actors, are a problem in pretty much any system you care to name or indeed invent. (At least until we can build a better transhuman that doesn't suffer from those certain unfortunate monkey-drives that produce people like that, anyway.) I think the thing we have to do is look to build systems and institutions that are as robust and self-healing as possible around them when they do show up, and that's where I'd argue that the ancap system has strengths, because it's got fewer handles of power to seize in the first place, and because it's polycentric: you can't just corrupt the EPA or the FDA or the police, you've got to corrupt a dozen envirocorps or fifty review boards or twenty-odd PPLs to get away with that same special crime. It's a lot shorter on single points of failure. tl;dr By no means perfect, but the market's working on that.
Quote:
Additionally, one other point: the entire thing depends on a level of tech and ability that enables easy entry into any economic field so as to easily create competitors. Areas where a considerable amount of start-up capital, tech or expertise or all of the above is needed--like, say, gas mining from a gas giant--allow for considerable more leeway in how far an abusive monopoly can go in milking their profits from their consumers.
Again, I agree. Entry costs are a problem, and even though we can eliminate artificial entry costs, that doesn't solve the problem of real entry costs and coordinating matching startup capital in situations such as that. Or, for that matter, certain natural monopolies, which will always be problematic. At least they, thanks to technological advancement and the long-term secular wealth increase, are becoming less of a problem over time. But in general, this is also why I'm an enthusiast for cornucopia machines and the technologies leading up to them from here-and-now - when you can endow everyone at majority with their very own means-of-production-in-a-box, this sort of problem gets a lot less problematic, right? -c
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
As another note on the entry
As another note on the entry cost issue: Another issue here, of course, is the need for good banks and capital sources. As a small business owner for more'n a few years, I've noticed banks becoming more and more hostile to entrepreneurs, especially those seeking capital and credit, over those years. I suspect that ancap banks are likely to be considerably more entrepreneur-friendly than here-and-nows, but I'm also absolutely certain that bond markets, etc., will be available to small businesses and individual entrepreneurs in ancap societies, and the laws we have here which prevent anyone but "experienced investors with a million in the bank" from investing in startups won't exist. Of course, this does permit the reoccurence of the problem that people who don't do their due diligence can lose their life savings investing in Velikovsky's Penny Stock and Planet Moving Company, lunatic failures-to-be, but it certainly does help put capital to cover those entry costs together, and reward the people who got it right. -c
Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture
Erulastant wrote:OK, an-caps.
Erulastant wrote:
OK, an-caps. I have a question that just occurred to me. Where the hell does the money come from? Who backs it? Because I think the free market would be pretty terrible at selecting the 'best money provider'. Is more money ever created? Currency has historically always been a public good provided by government. Can the free market handle its own lifeblood?
Ironically, in E.P., Extropia has the advantage of a foreign state nearby that trades with it. This means they can use the Credit currency of the PC and it will remain stable as their trade partner/ideological enemy remains viable.
MAD Crab MAD Crab's picture
Just to point out that you've
Just to point out that you've missed one very common battle tactic of monopolies that is perfectly legal and horribly effective. You just drop your sell price below your production costs and wait the other guy out. In theory multiple entrants could drive you into bankruptcy, but that doesn't normally happen. People see startups get crushed a couple times and realize that it's impossible to compete in that field. If you can't compete in the field, nobody is going to loan you the startup costs. That narrows the field of possible competition enormously. Your next argument about that is likely that nobody will work with such a company, but I disagree. First, they're the only game in town, by definition. Second, people just aren't very good at making big changes. If you've been getting your water from CraterMiningCo (tm) for five years, it takes a hell of a lot of bad behaviour for you to stop using them and go mine it yourself.
Hoarseman Hoarseman's picture
True
As you pointed out it is perfectly legal, however it isn't really unique to an-cap but to any system with natural monopolies. One example I like is Walmart, they come into an area and operate at a loss until many of the local stores are forced to close, then they have the market and if someone tries to come in no one wants to lend/buy-in as they'll be competing with Walmart. This lets them, WM, demand tax breaks from local governments including refunds on sales tax. They are after all one of, if not the, major employer and they own the market. Where this relates to EP is that in the Rim they would have a rep in the single digits and among the an-caps, some might like them but their techniques would probably be defined as coercive and potentially run afoul of basic social contracts. I realize it's not a great answer but there really isn't a good one outside of government oversight and that open up a whole other can of worms.
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
Quote:Where this relates to
Quote:
Where this relates to EP is that in the Rim they would have a rep in the single digits and among the an-caps, some might like them but their techniques would probably be defined as coercive and potentially run afoul of basic social contracts. I realize it's not a great answer but there really isn't a good one outside of government oversight and that open up a whole other can of worms.
Well, you can always abolish private property like other forms of anarchy do. It's hard to keep a monopoly if you don't actually own anything. Given that it's anarchists who tend to levy the "Monopolies and giant corps" argument against ancap, the anarchist solution to the problem should at least be considered before you say "There is no solution except government oversight".
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
Well, it's hardly as if that
Well, it's hardly as if that doesn't also open up a giant can of worms, now is it? After all, if we didn't think that whole private property thing was rather important, we'd be some other kind of anarchist... After all, from our philosophical perspective, theft is a strict subclass of coercion [1], and abolishing private property isn't abolishing theft, it's institutionalizing it. Makes that solution seem like curing your acid stomach by chugging a liter of lye; technically it works, but the consequences are something of a bugger, no? -c [1] Lengthy abstract argument available on request.
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
MAD Crab wrote:Your next
MAD Crab wrote:
Your next argument about that is likely that nobody will work with such a company, but I disagree.
Slightly but only slightly. What I'd point out is that this sort of monopoly technique is only particularly effective when two things are true: (a) Margins are already razor-thin; and (b) Your industry as a whole is competing on price. (a) is where that argument comes in. If you're going to do this, it's best to do this when margins are thin enough that you don't have to vary the price very much to do it, because even fairly oblivious consumers tend to notice when the price of X, Y, or Z bounces up and down 20%, 30%, 40% whenever there's a competitor. That situation is when the "people won't work with you" argument comes in, because if you're being that obvious about it, you're basically nailing a Snidely Whiplash hat onto your own head - and in a world with things like reputation networks, you're thereby shooting your own ass off. The other thing to note there is that while this scenario sucks for your prospective competitors, it doesn't suck nearly so much for the consumers, who are the people that markets are intended to serve. Wal-Mart assuredly uses this gambit, as the masters of squeezing every last basis point out of their supply chain, to keep out the competition; but while their would-be competitors are unhappy, the cheap-shit market is still flooded with cheap-shit at low, low prices, y'know? On (b), let me take off my ancap hat briefly and put on my entrepreneur hat, seeing as that is my day job. The first rule of entrepreneur club is, don't compete on price. The second rule of entrepreneur club is, DO NOT COMPETE ON PRICE. It may be hard to avoid it in commodity markets, like, say, water, but still, don't. Because it will put you on the wrong side of this sort of situation, and competing in order to see who can have the lowest cost, cut the most corners, squeeze their workforce the most, and compete on razor-edge margins is a shitty, soulless, and not even terribly profitable business to be in, except by volume if you've got it. If you want to take out CraterMiningCo's water business, you don't, as a startup, try to replicate all the stuff that makes their margins razor-thin. You market your water on the grounds that it, oh, tastes better, is purer, comes from organically-mined asteroids, is shipped in these cute little bottles, look, and that you're an awesome socially-conscious and hip startup with a profit-sharing program, and a discounted accelerated lease-to-own program on real genuine biomorphs, see, not a soulless megacorp that ships any old weird-tasting crap, abuses its indentures, and probably kicks puppies, too, into the bargain. Or, y'know, something like that. But the point is that for that technique to work, you have to be in a pretty specific market, and you have to get your competitors to try and beat you at your own game. Never do that. Play your own game until you're big enough to make them play yours. Or ignore 'em, 'cause by then you might not even want their niche. Either works. Putting the ancap hat back on: Yeah, what that guy said. The strength of the ancap system against this scenario is that it allows for very fast, nimble, easy-to-start-up-and-shut-down, snap-together business operations, and to deal with this strategy, you play to those strengths by running around them offering things you can put together, and the big monolith with the price-based strategy can't - not and continue to play its strategy. Businesses like that are structured to hunker down and outwait you; they can't fight a battle of maneuver, or restructure quickly to be able to fight one. -c
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
Cerebrate wrote:Well, it's
Cerebrate wrote:
Well, it's hardly as if that doesn't also open up a giant can of worms, now is it? After all, if we didn't think that whole private property thing was rather important, we'd be some other kind of anarchist... After all, from our philosophical perspective, theft is a strict subclass of coercion [1], and abolishing private property isn't abolishing theft, it's institutionalizing it. Makes that solution seem like curing your acid stomach by chugging a liter of lye; technically it works, but the consequences are something of a bugger, no? -c [1] Lengthy abstract argument available on request.
Well, I certainly understand how you would claim theft is coercion, so no lengthy argument required, at least for that point. I would, however, hear your defense for the idea that people necessarily should have the right to semi-unilaterally assert and exert complete control over non-people things.
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
This gets complicated in the details
Erulastant wrote:
I would, however, hear your defense for the idea that people necessarily should have the right to semi-unilaterally assert and exert complete control over non-people things.
But here's the fundamental summary, omitting for the moment certain artificial and contractual property rights and the pragmatic case for why property is useful: Because creation is ownership. (For non-people things, obviously; in people-things' case, it's parenthood. And I also think that's kind of a fuzzy line, but the issue of what exactly a people is is not germane to this post.) If you make something, it's the product of your will and your ideas and your time and the sweat of your brow, in varying proportions. You've used them up in the act of creation, and you can't get 'em back. (At the very least, you've lost the opportunity cost. You can never use that hour again, for example; it's one hour off your finite life.) If your property is expropriated (or you don't get to consider it your property ab initio, either one) without your consent, deliberately or by default, what you're losing and the other party is gaining is effectively the will and thought and time and sweat you put into creating it in the first place. And there's a term for those who profit from the labor, etc., of other people without their consent, and not a jolly one. I put it to you, therefore, that howsoever we define the details of property, lack of property is slavery; the direct exploitation of anyone who thinks a thought or lifts a hand to make something without the immediate and voluntary intention of relinquishing it. (I apologize preemptively, by the way, if I offend anyone by my choice of terminology - I do not intend to cast any aspersions, but it's hard to summarize the argument without the concept.) -c
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
OK, but:
OK, but: 1.) You can't make something from nothing (Not counting IP here). Trace the supply chain back and you eventually get to some resource extraction. How do you justify that original claim? 2.) If the idea of private property does not exist, then it is implicitly understood that if you make something, it is not yours. In a society where that is the case, the act of creation does [i]not[/i] imply ownership, since it is understood that by making it you are giving it up. 3.) Fundamentally, the idea of ownership is not that you can use or enjoy a thing. The idea of ownership is that you can [i]deny[/i] the use of a thing to others. That, I think, is how an anarchist would argue that ancap is coercive. Because every* single object in an ancap society 'belongs' to someone, which makes every single object a coercion. If I own a chair, I am coercing you not to sit in it.** 4.) Not a direct objection (yet), but do you ancaps believe that individuals have a right to make a profit [Edit: Economic profit]? [Edit: I do not mean "right" as in "guaranteed right". In this instance, I mean to ask if it is merely acceptable for someone to make an economic profit.] *nearly **Sure, I can give you permission to sit in the chair. I can also refuse that permission. My ownership of the chair gives me a small amount of power over you. Edited for clarity. Edited again for more clarity.
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture
So, let me get this straight:
So, let me get this straight: once you do value-added actions to something, it adds the conceptual tag of "ownership" to it due to the act of the adding the value, and that ownership is inviolate unless and until such time as the ownership is voluntarily relinquished, via sale, gifting or other legitimate means. I think that's a fair point, but it does raise another question: How, then, does someone engage in claiming ownership of something that they have not added value to? I suppose for exploratory and mineralogical exploitation, you could make the argument that the value-added actions come about from constructing the infrastructure that did the exploration and/or exploitation, but this is a circular argument--I own it because I extracted it, and I extracted it because I own it. Before you came along in your ship or with your shovel, the item was ownerless, and the individual has engaged in exploitation of a common resource for their private benefit, and the claim that "I get to benefit because I made the ship/smelter" is the same circular argument. ...and I was going somewhere with this. Bah. :p Pardon me while I reboot my brain. I'll be back in about eight hours. :)

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
Just because I don't want to
Just because I don't want to get caught up in misunderstandings here, and I've seen it used in several different (contradictory) ways - Before I answer that, would you might expanding on how we're defining "economic profit" as a term? I can work with any of 'em, I just need to know which one we're talking about. -c (And at this point in my evening, the answering itself'll probably be tomorrow, just FYI.)
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
Income derived from ownership
Income derived from ownership or management of a business beyond the opportunity cost of management time spent.
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
bibliophile20 wrote:So, let
bibliophile20 wrote:
So, let me get this straight: once you do value-added actions to something, it adds the conceptual tag of "ownership" to it due to the act of the adding the value, and that ownership is inviolate unless and until such time as the ownership is voluntarily relinquished, via sale, gifting or other legitimate means.
Yeah, pretty much. Of course, if you receive something from an existing owner via sale, gifting, whatever, it's yours immediately because they already owned it; that's just a transfer of the tag and it doesn't need a new one. Besides, one way or another, you gave to get and the transaction - if legitimate - balances.
Quote:
I think that's a fair point, but it does raise another question: How, then, does someone engage in claiming ownership of something that they have not added value to? I suppose for exploratory and mineralogical exploitation, you could make the argument that the value-added actions come about from constructing the infrastructure that did the exploration and/or exploitation,
I don't think we need to bring in the infrastructure, actually. The value-add is in the extraction - I own that pile of iron pigs over there because before I came along and created them, there wasn't any pig iron. There was just a big ol' pile of (assumptively unowned) rocks, obviously of substantially less value. Now, sigh, classical ancappery would just leave the initial-ownership issue there: if you mix your labor with it, it's yours. That's following Locke, who would have added the proviso "so long as you leave as much and more for others". I don't find that terribly satisfying myself, even with the Lockean proviso. It's a special case of the general problem of externalities [1], which is something that is rather a lacuna in classical ancap thought, and something that while we're [younger non-dogmatic ancaps in general, that is] working on it more recently there is not any generally agreed solution to yet. I, not speaking for anyone else, would say that using common resources should require the payment of an externality fee to "the commons" [2] equal to the original market value of the ore/the rocks that will no longer be available to them, just as producing - deliberately or accidentally - a positive externality, say by having a big garden of oxygen-generating plants on a habitat, should mean you receive an externality fee from "the commons". The problem, of course, is to arrange appropriate economic representation for "the commons" in a way that isn't readily corruptible, prices things appropriately, and doesn't turn into a state. We're working on that bit. I have some notions that might be good enough for fiction, but which I'm not quite ready to defend in front of the jury yet. Sorry. :) -c [1] To summarize if necessary: our style of economics tells us that all sorts of problems are caused by the way that various things, from resource depletion to pollution, don't show up in the books and so aren't considered (negative externalities). It also tells us that the best way to solve them is to make them be considered by putting them on the books, so that pollution doesn't pay and resource depletion is a liability, and those very price signals make you, Mr. Businessman, find ways to reduce 'em. Likewise, we should pay people for positive externalities they produce, to incentivize people to keep doing things in ways that have nice side-effects for others. [2] Mind you, if you're mining iron or water on Extropia this is going to be pretty nugatory, inasmuch as there's a million tonnes of the stuff lying untouched right outside the hab.
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
Okay, one more tonight.
Erulastant wrote:
Income derived from ownership or management of a business beyond the opportunity cost of management time spent.
Okay, gotcha. For owners, yes. Two reasons: 1. Opportunity cost of money. If you own a million-credit business or a million credits of a larger business, that's a million credits you can't do anything with. It makes your net worth look impressive on paper - it may even be most of your net worth - but you can't do anything with it, because it's not money, it's factories and machinery and tools and offices and computers and coffee machines and all the rest of the stuff you need to be in business that the workers don't have to provide for themselves. Part of that economic income the owners get is the reward, like the interest on a loan, for letting the business tie up all that money instead of being able to spend it on whatever else they might want. 2. Risk. If all your staff were in business for themselves, they'd have to cover their own risks - If their machinery breaks, they have to replace it. If they can't fulfill a contract, they have to pay the penalty themselves. If they screw up, they get to cover the lawsuit. If someone doesn't pay them, it's their bad debt to suffer. So it goes. When you're working for someone else, on the other hand, usually the sum total of your potential losses is that you lose your job and don't get paid any more. You don't have to replace your own breakages, and no-one's coming after you for the company's liabilities - which, in this case, are highly likely to be unlimited liabilities - because the owners and/or shareholders are liable to cover all of those instead. The other part of the economic income the owners get is their reward for assuming financial responsibility for every bit of entropy, fuck-up, and plain old-fashioned bad luck in the whole damn business. For managers, no, that sort of thing doesn't apply. I mean, I'm happy with the notion that the opportunity cost of management time spent, for, say, the CEO of a hypercorp is a pretty damn large number, 'cause if you're qualified for that position then you ought to have the kind of rare and valuable skillset that justifies it, but you certainly don't have a right to make more than the value the market says you produce (as profit) just 'cause you're a manager. (Or, indeed, just 'cause you're an owner - but the owners, as I say above, produce value for the business in other ways.) -c [Will get the other points in the morning. It's me for some sleep.]
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
Erulastant wrote:1.) You can
Erulastant wrote:
1.) You can't make something from nothing (Not counting IP here). Trace the supply chain back and you eventually get to some resource extraction. How do you justify that original claim?
Okay, I think I covered this in #44 ( http://eclipsephase.com/comment/43462#comment-43462 ), pretty much - anything I missed?
Quote:
2.) If the idea of private property does not exist, then it is implicitly understood that if you make something, it is not yours. In a society where that is the case, the act of creation does not imply ownership, since it is understood that by making it you are giving it up.
Well, that the idea doesn't exist may mean that you can't conceptualize the issue, but I don't think it goes away. The group is still expropriating the labor of the maker. It might actually be slightly worse from my perspective, since in order to make a ethical choice with informed consent, you have to be able to make the opposite choice; you can't voluntarily give something up unless you are able to not give it up.
Quote:
3.) Fundamentally, the idea of ownership is not that you can use or enjoy a thing. The idea of ownership is that you can deny the use of a thing to others. That, I think, is how an anarchist would argue that ancap is coercive. Because every* single object in an ancap society 'belongs' to someone, which makes every single object a coercion. If I own a chair, I am coercing you not to sit in it.**
I've heard that argument (although I don't think ownership is quite that limited an idea, or that those concepts are quite as uncoupled as they seem to be), and given its premises, I can respect that argument. But over here on the ancap side, we have an almost symmetrical argument. We would say that all property is a tool that expands your freedom (which is to say, the phase-space of your volition [1]; the choices you can make). Anything that you can't do naked in space is something that you can do because of one piece of property or another. Now, you might say, that doesn't require ownership, just use [2]. Well, the problem here is that what I own, I can use as I will. What I don't own, I can use only with the consent of its owners - and if no-one owns anything, which is functionally indistinguishable from everyone owning anything, that's everyone. A lack of ownership is effectively giving the whole world, or at least the whole local world, the power of veto over the actions I can take, because the collective can control either directly or by default my access to the tools I need. It reduces the phase-space of my volition without my consent, which is coercion and therefore impermissible. But the reverse case, the one you bring up, doesn't do that. I'm not coercing you because I'm not taking away the choice to sit in the chair that you had; you never had it in the first place. I'm not giving it to you, necessarily, but I'm not taking it away. (Now, naturally, I would argue that ancap morality, vis-a-vis ancap ethics, would say that I should let you sit down, and, hey, maybe give you a damn chair if I have plenty. It's not like selfishness is a virtue, unlike, say, greed, and Wheaton's Law says "Dude, don't be a chair-hogging dick". But that's supererogatory, not compulsory, because making it compulsory invites in coercion.) Fundamentally, I suspect, this is an irresolvable conflict of premises: whether things start out owned or not implicitly defines the direction of the coercion. Let me bring up one other thing, though, on a tangent: an asymmetry here is another reason why I would argue for ancap as a baseline. It is possible for a group to consensually implement ancol within ancap by contractually agreeing that all property within their group will be common property, or even by voluntarily waiving all property rights, period; the reverse, on the other hand, is not possible. In the interests of maximizing all the axes of possible freedoms, then...? -c [1] Pardon me if I bring in too many terms from my personal general theory of liberty, available soon from all good bookshops where turgid self-published philosophical treatises are sold. [2] On a less philosophical note, this becomes a much stickier practical problem when it comes to property involving emotional attachment. If we're not talking about "my chair", but rather "my wife's favorite chair that we used to sit in before she died", then we have a much bigger problem about me not owning that chair. If we're instead talking about something like "my dog" [3] that someone else wishes to exert rights of ownership over - say, having him put down 'cause they don't like his barking - then we have the kind of problem that someone's going to be ended over. [3] Although I don't think they should be treated as simple property in the first place, but that's another argument; run with this one.
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
House
I guess, I really don't know. In Cerebrate's defense, he doesn't want his form of society "for everyone" as the number of condescending voices against his ideal system necessitate the acknowledgment that, you can't have a society based on individual volition and prosperity by forcing others to conform to it. No he's just trying, and doing a bang up job, describing the merits and theoretical functions such a place would have. I still stand with what I said. Build my house on the water. It is, exactly what I imagined it to be, the waves may be ever shifting around it, but to retain this ideal image is worth the price of weathering the storm. If, what I think you're getting at, is the issue of co-existence, I repeat my question from earlier. Why not? I thought that was the Autonomist Alliance's whole point. Anar: "I don't like capitalism." Extro: "Well I don't like collectivism." Consort: "Give us your shit!" *Both draw weapons* "HELL NO!" Anar: "I still don't like how you live." Extro: "Same goes for us." Anar: "Bygones be bygones?" Extro: "We have an accord." Space is big . . . . really big. Can't we all just to live how we want to live?
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
Well, we're discussing the
Well, we're discussing the theoretical merits of a particular system. Obviously the ideal would be for there to be multiple polities with separate access to more or less equal resources with no barriers to immigration, and then to each their own. But that does not mean we cannot discuss the individual merits of each. My viewpoint is that, assuming all systems more or less approach their ideal: -Collectivism does the best job of self-correcting the asshole problem. It's the least productive though, especially with long-term large scale projects. -Ancap is highly productive but doesn't have a strong mechanism for dealing with the asshole problem. It has the potential for a very high innovation rate and impressive long-term projects--So long as those projects are likely to turn a profit. It enshrines economic power structures. -Democracy* has an economy stronger than ancol and weaker than ancap, but provides greater protections and basic living for the least of its citizens than does ancap. The asshole problem is dealt with better than ancap in the long term though it is still sometimes a short-term problem. Long-term and large-scale projects are most easily handled by a democracy, and projects with no immediate benefit are more likely to be started and completed than in ancap. There is the downside of low levels of coercion. -An idealized republic** would function similarly to an idealized democracy*, though it would be more coercive and also more prone to failure. It may handle long-term projects slightly better. *Hypothetical direct democracy, similar to Titan but perhaps without all of their economic quirks. **Or representative democracy. I'm using the terms interchangeably.
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Cerebrate Cerebrate's picture
For the record, I'd agree
For the record, I'd agree with much of the critique there for pure ancap - which is why I spend my theorizing time working on ways to come up with voluntarist ideas I can borrow from elsewhere - like, say, ancol - to better handle the asshole problem. (And to handle the externality problem, which is something that I don't think either ancol or ancap do very well. Democracy/republic could in theory handle them better, but their actual track record on this is, shall we say, not great.) -c
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
Ancol would theoretically be
Ancol would theoretically be slightly better at managing externalities, but I think you're right, they'd both be pretty bad at it. (And ancol would only be any better at managing short-term externalities, where the negative effects to everyone are immediately visible. Tobacco smoking and second hand smoke, ancol would handle fine. Greenhouse gasses and climate change, they'd handle terribly.) I don't think democracy actually has a track record on externalities, because like ancap and ancol, it has never been implemented. I guess I should also clarify what I meant by the asshole problem. It's twofold: 1) Some people will be assholes, and 2) Some of them will try to exploit the flaws in the system for their own benefit to everyone else's detriment. I guess I forgot to mention how absolutely terribly Republics would fare on the second point but I think we all knew that already.
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Summation
That's a pretty good summation of the pros and cons of each. Now speaking, strictly personally, I still prefer a system with the asshole problem. I'm much more of a "For Happiness" than a "For Great Justice" kind of person. To me, the ideal life is one where happiness is increased and misery decreased, even at the cost of evil being permitted to exist. AnCap; being based on the foundation of serving markets and the efficiency of competition, promises great happiness. "Assholes" do exist, but again, that's a price I'm willing to pay. Not everyone is, but that's why I said this was my strictly personal opinion.
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Pages