A consumer fears retribution if they attempt to seek out another provider of security, and the damage created by “turf wars” hurts us all.

That seems to describe the current situation under government. In what sense is the government anything but another mafia? In what sense are they anything but a full participant in such turf wars?

The nature of security is such that it is a good procured by the weak from the strong, and there may or not be incentives for the strong to behave towards one another in a civilized manner.

That’s the nature of security? How do the weak procure it from the strong now?

there is no way to *get* to what you’re talking about without proceeding from *principles*. That’s a fact.

I would go further and so there is no way to get there from here *period*.

This is my own conviction: *principled* objections in *action* would go far to making the necessary arguments to these people. I am still convinced that there is enough of a political conscience remaining in this country to which to appeal with demonstrations of action from principle by those with the courage of conviction.

Whatever makes you think that?

Note that the most successful mafias in history developed a monopoly on their territory and at some point transform themselves into States. Which gives you the situation we have today. So, I suspect that if you already have an ancap society then you’ll have your mafia question answered. For speculation about the answer, see

http://www.no-treason.com/Kennedy/3.php

I don’t see a whole lot wrong with that in theory, although of course such means don’t exist now and may not for some time to come.

Of course not. You’re talking about people born & bred to a government yoke for whole generations.

I’ll tell you what, though: I’m pretty sick and tired of people addressing these matters from Pragmatism. (Please note the capitalization: I did that for good reason.) Mark this: there is no way to *get* to what you’re talking about without proceeding from *principles*. That’s a fact. This is my own conviction: *principled* objections in *action* would go far to making the necessary arguments to these people. I am still convinced that there is enough of a political conscience remaining in this country to which to appeal with demonstrations of action from principle by those with the courage of conviction.

I’m only talking, essentially, about what Martin Luther King achieved in the South: flood the courts and embrace the prisons. A bunch of *children* did this, and even the worst racists down there couldn’t stand it.

Now; I might be wrong. But if I am, and it wouldn’t work, then at least the issue would be perfectly clear for all to see.

And that in itself would be a value.

That really depends on the level of kleptocracy. The average North Korean is about as badly abused as the average Zimbabwean. However, the vast majority of North Koreans love their “Dear Leader” and thank him whenever anything goes right in their lives. Some of this is due to fear. However, i think the vast majority of North Koreans sincerely believe that Kim Jong Il legitimately holds them as thralls.

The state is not a fearsome monster just because it has the biggest guns; it is the greatest standing threat to liberty because the vast majority of people accept its activities as legitimate and morally proper. Considered a necessary evil

Would the vast majority in Zimbabwe or Cuba consider the activities of their dictators to be legitimate and morally proper, or are they simply resigned to the fact that they believe it’s too powerful to resist?

The state is not a fearsome monster just because it has the biggest guns; it is the greatest standing threat to liberty because the vast majority of people accept its activities as legitimate and morally proper.

Tim, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement above. However, the problem is that people can easily be convinced of the legitimacy of these coercive gangs. Inevitably every society faces some “crisis”, people being thrown out of work due to technological change*, invasion, strangers immigrating, etc. The temptation of those being hurt in such a crisis is to support violent suppression of the change through embargoes, or immigration quotas or something. And when someone appears offering a little guiltless violence to many people will execute that near universal human trait of rationalizing a betrayal of one’s principles.

Based on the thousands of years of recorded history, we can state with certainty that human society is unstable. This principle applies to an-cap societies too. Whether an-cap societies are more or less stable than societies with states, though, is a very different issue. But we can be certain that an an-cap society will eventually collapse.

*Lest anyone berate me, I am aware that in the long run the technological change does not permanently lower employment. In the long run, in an unhampered economy, a person desiring work will find it.

Let me ask you a question: if the *illusion* of government protection were gone and everyday citizens had to face these animals on their own powers of reason and action, just what makes you think the animals would survive the day?

The reason I suggest this is by looking at the world stage as largely an-cap on the aggregate level. The UN’s personal hopes aside, there is no real consequence for a local dictator to worry about being controlled by any international police. Look at Mugabe in Zimbabwe for a bit of evidence of this.

On the world stage, local strongmen often become local dictators and put their people under the boot, and those local strongmen often survive decades in power. There is a precedence for such things to happen, and there is precedence for individual people, while they may detest the situation, to be too fearful of the repercussions to overthrow those strongmen.

I think if anything, tarran’s point that it requires a people who don’t wish to be ruled for an an-cap society to thrive is a very good one. Would you say that we really have that in the US today? Or would you say that we need to change the culture before we’d simply be exchanging one set of rulers for another?

It’s the Stability Problem, and I’m looking for some real debate on that topic rather than justification that *any* an-cap society is better than the state.

If I were interested in poinsoning the well, I would argue that the moment the mafia-esque behavior becomes significant, the society ceases to be an an-cap society and we can thus ignore it. :)

Joking aside, there is a side to people that seeks to live at the expense of others. This side can be weakened by cultural factors and proper education but not eliminated entirely. The beauty of an an-cap system is that for low levels of violence, it is far more stable; under a government, people who would never support the mafia do support politicians who promise them goodies like “free health care” or “free education” paid for by guilt-free extortion.

Now, if we lived in a society peopled by people who study political theory and are very sensitive to the principles behind classical liberalism, such mafia like structures would never arise. The problem is that 99% of the population don’t care about political theory, and no amount of social engineering will change that. Thus they are susceptible to snake-oil salesmen offering “free health care” as a Christmas present.

To be stable an ancap society would have to have checks preventing these snake-oil salesmen from gathering a sufficient following. I think that what is required is
1) Ease of movement between polities.
2) A high enough level of technology that people aren’t struggling to survive
3) Low barriers to mass communication – which we now have thanks to the internet
4) Technologies like microgenerators, water purifiers etc which allow an individual to “opt out” of utilities etc.
5) A culture that is tolerant of people who are different.

Under such a system, the would be mafioso would face very high barriers to establishing control. However, these barriers, no matter how high, would not be a certain guarantee against the rise of mafia clans.

Did you ever see the footage of the crowd beating the shit out of the Hell’s Angels at Evel Knievel’s jump at The Cow Palace in 1972?

{beat… beat}

Let me ask you a question: if the *illusion* of government protection were gone and everyday citizens had to face these animals on their own powers of reason and action, just what makes you think the animals would survive the day?