In general, political movements are better at explaining the problems of solutions proposed by their opponents, than at defending their own solution. That’s because the world is complicated and everything is imperfect, which works for you when you are attacking a solution, but works against you when you are defending one.
Yes, the theories trying to derive the legitimacy of the state from the first principles are bullshit. The “social contract” only works if we stretch the meaning of “contract” into something that would not be accepted in any other context. Even if we assume the necessity of the state to do some things, the states are eager to expand way beyond that. Yes, this all sucks. It is trivial to prove, because in real life, everything sucks.
Now if we look closely at the anarchist theories, they are usually based on some form of “Copenhagen interpretation of ethics”. If something very bad happens for “natural” reasons, it might be sad, but it is morally irrelevant. If someone prevents the very bad thing from happening… and then charges you 10 cents for the service, without obtaining your consent first, hundreds of pages will be written explaining in detail why this is the actual evil that we all need to fight against.
In other words, the anarchist solution seems morally superior because it uses a clever accounting trick where the bad things the anarchism doesn’t care about are excluded from the equation. A scenario where the bears rip and devour your entire family is perfectly neutral from this perspective, because no human was acting against your consent. A scenario where a group of human thugs does the same is still okay-ish in some sense, because no state was involved; at least you have avoided the horrors of non-consensual taxation! You may be a victim of an actual theft or worse, but at least you will be free from the metaphorical theft.
Would security agencies be in constant wars? Violence is very costly and security agencies wouldn’t have an incentive to fight wars.
This is an argument against a constant war of balanced armies. But if a stronger army could eliminate a weaker opponent in one decisive strike, it might be a profitable investment.
Also, you could harass your weaker competitor’s customers. If the competitor sends their soldiers to fight against your soldiers, both sides will pay the costs of the war, but only your side will profit from the customers who changed their mind and decided to start paying you for the protection instead.
Would criminals form their own security agencies? Protecting ordinary people is more profitable than criminals, who by definition enter conflicts on purpose.
Translation: Only the rich criminals could afford that. The anarchist utopia will protect you against the crime, under the condition that the crime never pays off significantly.
He claims that other countries would have less incentive to invade an anarchic society since the anarchic society wouldn’t pose as much of the threat to them, and that they would be more costly to invade since there would be no existing government structure to co-opt.
Of course, only a fool would invade an anarchic society. Instead, you would take its territory piece by piece. Each piece small enough that in short term it is more profitable for the security agency to give it up, rather than risk fighting your army.
What happens, from the economical perspective, if Putin puts his army next to your farm, without attacking yet? If the security agency you have a contract with is serious about potentially defending your farm no matter what, they will expect more expenses compared to their competitors, so they will have to increase your payments. At some moment, you will lose your farm even if Putin actually never attacks, because you will not be able to afford the expensive insurance anymore. The market price of the farm will drop, until it just isn’t worth insuring it. Then Putin will take it without resistance. -- But at least we have avoided the war, isn’t that a great thing? Sure it is, but 20 or 50 years later, your society will exist no more, taken apart one farm at a time.
“A scenario where a group of human thugs [rips and devours your entire family] is still okay-ish in some sense, because no state was involved; at least you have avoided the horrors of non-consensual taxation!”
Suppose that in the anarchist utopia, someone overconfident about their self-defense skills refuses to hire a protection agency, and the next day a group of thugs murders the entire family. I assume the answer would be: “well, they clearly made a mistake, that’s exactly what the protection agencies are for.” The dead family would be a tragedy, but it would not be considered a tragedy caused by the regime.
Compare to the statist utopia, where the police protects everyone, and citizens pay taxes. If someone doesn’t pay, they get thrown in jail. “They clearly made a mistake, you are supposed to pay taxes...” “How dare you!” Every person in the jail (or killed resisting the arrest) is a tragedy caused by the regime.
So, even if hypothetically the former regime had orders of magnitude more tragedies, in the anarchist calculus it would be morally preferable, because those tragedies don’t count as an argument against it.
Michael Huemer and David D Friedman primarily employ consequentialist arguments in favor of philosophical anarchism (especially Friedman). My understanding is that you’re assuming their arguments are rooted in applying a blanket action/omission asymmetry on the part of state actors, implying that the fewer actions states take, the better. I think this view substantially misinterprets their actual arguments though, as I don’t think they lean heavily on this asymmetry in any part in their books.
In general, political movements are better at explaining the problems of solutions proposed by their opponents, than at defending their own solution. That’s because the world is complicated and everything is imperfect, which works for you when you are attacking a solution, but works against you when you are defending one.
Yes, the theories trying to derive the legitimacy of the state from the first principles are bullshit. The “social contract” only works if we stretch the meaning of “contract” into something that would not be accepted in any other context. Even if we assume the necessity of the state to do some things, the states are eager to expand way beyond that. Yes, this all sucks. It is trivial to prove, because in real life, everything sucks.
Now if we look closely at the anarchist theories, they are usually based on some form of “Copenhagen interpretation of ethics”. If something very bad happens for “natural” reasons, it might be sad, but it is morally irrelevant. If someone prevents the very bad thing from happening… and then charges you 10 cents for the service, without obtaining your consent first, hundreds of pages will be written explaining in detail why this is the actual evil that we all need to fight against.
In other words, the anarchist solution seems morally superior because it uses a clever accounting trick where the bad things the anarchism doesn’t care about are excluded from the equation. A scenario where the bears rip and devour your entire family is perfectly neutral from this perspective, because no human was acting against your consent. A scenario where a group of human thugs does the same is still okay-ish in some sense, because no state was involved; at least you have avoided the horrors of non-consensual taxation! You may be a victim of an actual theft or worse, but at least you will be free from the metaphorical theft.
This is an argument against a constant war of balanced armies. But if a stronger army could eliminate a weaker opponent in one decisive strike, it might be a profitable investment.
Also, you could harass your weaker competitor’s customers. If the competitor sends their soldiers to fight against your soldiers, both sides will pay the costs of the war, but only your side will profit from the customers who changed their mind and decided to start paying you for the protection instead.
Translation: Only the rich criminals could afford that. The anarchist utopia will protect you against the crime, under the condition that the crime never pays off significantly.
Of course, only a fool would invade an anarchic society. Instead, you would take its territory piece by piece. Each piece small enough that in short term it is more profitable for the security agency to give it up, rather than risk fighting your army.
What happens, from the economical perspective, if Putin puts his army next to your farm, without attacking yet? If the security agency you have a contract with is serious about potentially defending your farm no matter what, they will expect more expenses compared to their competitors, so they will have to increase your payments. At some moment, you will lose your farm even if Putin actually never attacks, because you will not be able to afford the expensive insurance anymore. The market price of the farm will drop, until it just isn’t worth insuring it. Then Putin will take it without resistance. -- But at least we have avoided the war, isn’t that a great thing? Sure it is, but 20 or 50 years later, your society will exist no more, taken apart one farm at a time.
“A scenario where a group of human thugs [rips and devours your entire family] is still okay-ish in some sense, because no state was involved; at least you have avoided the horrors of non-consensual taxation!”
Sorry, this doesn’t pass the ITT.
Suppose that in the anarchist utopia, someone overconfident about their self-defense skills refuses to hire a protection agency, and the next day a group of thugs murders the entire family. I assume the answer would be: “well, they clearly made a mistake, that’s exactly what the protection agencies are for.” The dead family would be a tragedy, but it would not be considered a tragedy caused by the regime.
Compare to the statist utopia, where the police protects everyone, and citizens pay taxes. If someone doesn’t pay, they get thrown in jail. “They clearly made a mistake, you are supposed to pay taxes...” “How dare you!” Every person in the jail (or killed resisting the arrest) is a tragedy caused by the regime.
So, even if hypothetically the former regime had orders of magnitude more tragedies, in the anarchist calculus it would be morally preferable, because those tragedies don’t count as an argument against it.
Michael Huemer and David D Friedman primarily employ consequentialist arguments in favor of philosophical anarchism (especially Friedman). My understanding is that you’re assuming their arguments are rooted in applying a blanket action/omission asymmetry on the part of state actors, implying that the fewer actions states take, the better. I think this view substantially misinterprets their actual arguments though, as I don’t think they lean heavily on this asymmetry in any part in their books.
Can you say why?