RE: Lester's extreme compatibility thesis
--- Gil Guillory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I think there's something to Hoppe's and von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's arguments that monarchy is superior to democracy with regard to this general problem of what we might euphemistically call the externalities of war. Does World War I and its initiation by the monarchies of Germany, Austria, Turkey, the UK and Russia, fit this? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Lester's extreme compatibility thesis
Sorry, just catching up to this post... First, if war were so expensive relative to peace why does it exist? Maybe peace is more expensive, in terms of risk for example, than open warfare. The costs of war are born by those who pay for and die in the wars, and these people are not the same people that write articles and books in support of wars, and they are not the same people that benefit from wars, such as military industrialists, generals, and politicians, the latter two of which fulfill their legacies by agitating for war. It's more nuanced than that, of course; but I think there's something to Hoppe's and von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's arguments that monarchy is superior to democracy with regard to this general problem of what we might euphemistically call the externalities of war. Second, I might say that going to war isn't expensive, going to war against ME is expensive, because I'm going to recruit the demons who walk the earth. I won't put Charles Manson in jail, I'll put him on the payroll. I don't understand this question. Shifting the dialog to another adversarial arena, it is precisely the costs of employing agents on one's behalf for extended battles that provides the incentive for people to settle their conflicts before they get to court. Approximately 95% of civil cases that try mediation (including those who are instructed to try it by the judge) settle. The analogy is apt, and I will defend it if necessary. smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: Lester's extreme compatibility thesis
John, there has been plenty written in the academic journals over the past decade debating your questions. For theoretical arguements look up Tyler Cowen The Economics of Anarchy in Economics and philosophy and David Friedman's response. Dan Sutter's paper Asymetric Power relations in Anarchy in the Southern Economic Journal (1995). Caplan and Stringham have responses to the above in a forthcoming Article in the Review of Austrian Economics (Bryan is this available on your website?). All of these articles address the problems you mention much more seriously than the naive Hobbesian vision. Perhaps more interesting than just the theoretical literature are the historical accounts of interaction without the state. Fred Foldvary has mentioned David Friedman's research on Iceland, also there is the classic by Terry Anderson and PJ Hill America's Experiment with Anarcho Capitalism: The NOT so Wild Wild West in the Journal of Libertarian studies, availible online at www.mises.org . Also not to be missed is much of Bruce Benson's work including his book The Enterprise of Law, Justice without the State. Hope you find these references helpful in answering your questions. Ben Powell --- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What prevents a particular private law enforcement agency from engaging in mob-style protection? For example, in Friedman's Anarchy and Efficient Law, he states that, The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html) First, if war were so expensive relative to peace why does it exist? Maybe peace is more expensive, in terms of risk for example, than open warfare. Second, I might say that going to war isn't expensive, going to war against ME is expensive, because I'm going to recruit the demons who walk the earth. I won't put Charles Manson in jail, I'll put him on the payroll. This is an honest question, one that has been vexing me. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Lester's extreme compatibility thesis
From: Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Nothing in the state, everything against the state, everything outside the state. Which is why neither Mises, Rothbard, OR Mussolini ought never have been allowed near the levers of power. A world with the all inclusive Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we debate at the margins of the middle ground for the best mix of us and me that works best. This is surely odd. Firstly, Mises was not an anarchist. Secondly, the whole point of anarchism is for no one to be near or at the levers of power; so, Rothbard never pined for such a position. It is a bold conjecture, though popular, to claim that anarchy would be as horrific as thoroughgoing fascism. I deny it. Also, I would like your account of how far we are from thoroughgoing fascism today (to get you started, what in the modern US is outside or against the state?). If we are sufficiently close to ideal fascism, do you mean to say that a switch to anarchy would not greatly affect our aggregate collective welfare? If not, what would? Of particular interest to me lately is Jan Lester's book _Escape from Leviathan_ which argues at (book) length for what Lester calls the extreme compatibility thesis: in practice...and in the long term, there are no systematic clashes among interpersonal liberty, general welfare, and market-anarchy... This is the exact opposite of your conjecture, but put in a more analytical framework. If you'd like to advance criticisms of Lester's thesis, I think that would be both interesting and on-topic for the list. What puzzles me about your post also is what you mean by the best mix of 'us' and 'me' that works the best. What does that mean? smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: Lester's extreme compatibility thesis
What prevents a particular private law enforcement agency from engaging in mob-style protection? For example, in Friedman's Anarchy and Efficient Law, he states that, The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html) First, if war were so expensive relative to peace why does it exist? Maybe peace is more expensive, in terms of risk for example, than open warfare. Second, I might say that going to war isn't expensive, going to war against ME is expensive, because I'm going to recruit the demons who walk the earth. I won't put Charles Manson in jail, I'll put him on the payroll. This is an honest question, one that has been vexing me. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
