Functionality of an Anarcho-Capitalist System

[n_huffhines]

I wanted to address a lot of questions and comments that came up on a thread unrelated to this topic.

 

[n_huffhines]

I do not know that it is such a no-brainer. Say you are a large corporation that sells to everyone. Now, someone introduces this idea. Now, to play along, you must voluntarily restrict your own consumer base? It does not seem as though there would be any incentive for a seller to do so. The only incentive that would work would be if there was some type of collective, group decision to adopt this method; but, that just provides a longer route to the question of what would be each individual seller's incentive to join the group? I just fail to see any motivating force behind the initial idea.

Is this a closed system or an open system?

A seller may restrict their consumer base. Maybe a supplier decides not to sell to Wal-Mart because they don’t like their practices and maybe they think other potential partners will respect them for it. I’m not saying all would. I figure for the most part consumers would act without reputation representation in the market place. Workers, renters, etc. would not.

The way I see it working is there are entities that will issue “reputation scores” much like credit reporting agencies. Their entire business is staked on their reputation for providing truthful information, so they have a strong incentive to act accordingly. The reputation management companies have an equally stronger incentive to act reputably, IMO. I foresee it functioning with symmetrical information for all. Is this what you mean by “open”?

 

[n_huffhines]

Human beings inherently want what is in their own self-interest; self-interest, upon reflection and according to game theory, most often aligns with non-violence. Human beings are also prone to sympathy and empathy, however, the strength of these emotions often correlates with the strength of relation.

Over the course of history, violence (as a percentage of total population) has dropped while for the past 3,000 years, at least, governments, generally, have become less authoritative and totalitarian. Thus, government cannot explain the drop in violence. The three advances that I feel are the leading candidates for the drop in violence are (1) the evolution in farming and storage techniques/technology which has allowed many individuals to move beyond the state of bare subsistence, (2) trade and capitalism, and (3) the republic of letters (the invention of the printing press and spread of ideas).

(1) If one is barely meeting the necessary conditions for existence, then any theft of property is, potentially, a life or death occurrence. Thus, individuals in such a state had to guard their property with violent urgency. Moving beyond that state allows for the possibility of forgiveness and mercy.

(2) It would not be in your best interest to kill those you trade with; likewise, it would not be in your best interest to live in a society that is so dangerous that merchants and traders will not visit your society (Adam Smith has a great historical example regarding just this in Wealth of Nations). Thus, as trade increases, violence decreases (especially, inter-tribal violence, as opposed to intra-tribal violence).

(3) The republic of letters. With the invention of the printing press, books and ideas could be spread far, wide, and cheaply. Moreover, reading literature plays on the sympathy/empathy mechanism; as well, individuals are able to form relationships and sympathize with others that are from different areas and cultures. I think the internet will, ultimately, do much to decrease violence, as now the notion of a 'global community' has some real legs to it.

This is really interesting, and all concepts I’ve thought about, but not necessarily in these terms. I have however conceded (probably on this message board) that modern technology makes anarchy more plausible. The age of information makes reputation as an incentive a more viable solution. Etc.

 

[n_huffhines]

I am not sure that the "old west" example helps your argument. While there were certainly lawless communities in the old west that experienced little to no crime (Shasta County is a great example), there were also communities that had crime rates that surpass any other crime rates in the past 500-1,000 years:

It seems we have conflicting info about the old west. If you want to read it:

UnpopularTruth.com: Myths of the Old West

 

[n_huffhines]

One of the many problems I see in your idea huff is that it doesn't account for the people who don't care about their "reputation." It's like how I can't get a loan because I've never had a credit of any kind, and I don't want to get a credit card. However, the one time I applied for one I was denied because I have no history of credit.

Maybe that isn't the analogy I was looking for. Either way, the system in the US only supports those that are in pursuit of riches. It is inherently against those that are content to live a modest and self-fulfilling life.

The market will supply you with reputation vouching, as long as you pay. No known reputation is better than a bad one. If you have to pay relatively higher premiums for the first few months or so, there will always be a party willing to cover you. If you have a bad reputation, you have to pay out the ass. This protects society from people behaving badly. Everyone has an incentive to care about their reputation. There are exceptions to every rule. The question is whether or not there are so many exceptions that we are better off with government. I don’t think that is the case. With government we still have tons of violence, fraud, theft, etc. People assume that we would have more without government, but I think that is an unwarranted assumption.

 

[therealUT]

A seller may restrict their consumer base. Maybe a supplier decides not to sell to Wal-Mart because they don’t like their practices and maybe they think other potential partners will respect them for it. I’m not saying all would. I figure for the most part consumers would act without reputation representation in the market place. Workers, renters, etc. would not.

The way I see it working is there are entities that will issue “reputation scores” much like credit reporting agencies. Their entire business is staked on their reputation for providing truthful information, so they have a strong incentive to act accordingly. The reputation management companies have an equally stronger incentive to act reputably, IMO. I foresee it functioning with symmetrical information for all. Is this what you mean by “open”?

Not what I mean by open.

Open being the opportunity to do business outside of the system. Closed being constrained solely to the system.

So, if this is an open system, what keeps someone from simply getting parts/being supplied from Mexico, China, the Philippines, etc? If it is closed, how do you go about closing it?

 

[n_huffhines]

I am sure there are many small governments that have. Like I said before, government does not inherently create violence.

How could it? That is just as dumb as stating that guns kill people when in fact people kill people. The government, just as the gun, is a mere tool for the murderer.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would one freely enter into a social contract if their neighbors were inherently good?

Government is a tool for killing, theft, and force. A gun is a tool available to all. Government is a tool available to the aristocracy. It corrupts. Inherently it will act violently when it doesn’t need to because there is little opposition.

And you got me. I don’t know why anyone would freely enter into a social contract at all. I sure didn’t.

 

[n_huffhines]

Not what I mean by open.

Open being the opportunity to do business outside of the system. Closed being constrained solely to the system.

So, if this is an open system, what keeps someone from simply getting parts/being supplied from Mexico, China, the Philippines, etc? If it is closed, how do you go about closing it?

It's an open system. You don't stop them from doing that. If it's bad behavior the public will find out about it. I'm not really understanding your point of contention, so maybe clarify.

 

[therealUT]

It's an open system. You don't stop them from doing that. If it's bad behavior the public will find out about it. I'm not really understanding your point of contention, so maybe clarify.

There seems to be no motivation for compliance, in that case. Consumers, for the most part, want to buy the cheapest goods; sellers, for the most part, want to make the most profit. If cutting corners/cheating the system leads one to believe that they will be able to make more profit while selling lower priced goods to consumers (because they can always find suppliers outside the system that are looking for money), then that is what they will do. Competition will force the others to follow.

 

[n_huffhines]

It is true that some will see cutting corners as profitable, but that's not any different than the reality we face with government. There will always be cheaper choices, but compare Wal-Mart to Target. Based on Target's reputation, they can charge $19.99 for the same beard trimmer that you can get at Wal-Mart for $11.99 (real life Huff example). People hate Wal-Mart's practices, so when they can afford it, they take their business elsewhere.

If you deal with suppliers of ill-repute you are risking your reputation. It's totally up to you whether or not that is a good risk. I am willing to bet in the age of information (and hopefully with increasingly laissez faire systems) we have more business's like Tom's and fewer like Exxon.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Government is a tool for killing, theft, and force. A gun is a tool available to all. Government is a tool available to the aristocracy. It corrupts. Inherently it will act violently when it doesn’t need to because there is little opposition.

Duck, duck, dodge. You did not at all provide a coherent retort to my assertion.

And you got me. I don’t know why anyone would freely enter into a social contract at all. I sure didn’t.

You are currently doing so in an implicit manner. You are free to leave this social contract and engage in another social contract elsewhere.