You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] properal 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

States have the same challenge. What stops the police union from taking over the police department? The military you might say, but what stops the military from taking over the government. This has happened in state societies. It could happen in an anarcho-capitalist one too. Of course when takeovers happen even when they are socialist ones they don't usually end up as a worker's paradise.

The challenge is how do you have an organization powerful enough to protect you, but won't use its power to takeover?

One strategy for regional defense is sort of similar to your cooperative strategy. That is to have a small professional elite force supported by many part time community based militia. The professionals maintain the knowledge and skills of defense though they are too small without the support of the militia to take over. The militia are part time and have affinity to the communities they live in so are unlikely to attack their own communities. This is what the founders of the US advocated for. This could be implemented in an AnCap society as well.

See The Hard Problem: Part II draft chapter from The Machinery of Freedom 3rd Ed - David D. Friedman

As for a local security company being taken over by the employees, their success would depend on their customers support. One protection firm being taken over by workers might loose all its customers and its income,leavening the workers with little for their risky takeover.

Now if the whole region was taken over by a socialist movement then even a state might not stop them as happened in the Bolshevik revolution. However socialist revolutions have not yet happened in a capitalist society, they have all happened in more feudalistic societies.


[–] MassHavoq [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

A few reasons why state militaries don't take over states include:

  • It's treason, all encompassing fear keeps the individuals and lower commanders in check.
  • The higher military leaders are paid fairly well and are given praise which lowers their incentive to act.
  • The people as a whole would not accept military take overs, although it's uncertain how much power the people do have. None the less, it may provide enough fear to help lower the incentive of the higher military leaders.
  • Ideology thoroughly implanted in the minds of the people, including the military leaders themselves make such an action repulsive. This has worked very well for the small kingdoms in Europe for thousands of years, divine rights of kings, and codes of honor are pervasive. Up until major events like the Magna Carta where the higher military leaders (barons) attempted to create a "democracy" which ended up failing because the king and the barons back stabbed eachother.
  • It's not completely certain that militaries today in practically all states don't currently rule without our awareness. Militaries have a lot of freedom to act, conducting "illegal" experimentation, conducting wars based on lies, taking bribes from all interested parties (That don't inherently threaten the state as it is). It may just be that the reason militaries as we know them don't take over is simply because they already have. It may be more convenient to remain in the shadows as a "branch of defence". Any failings of the state/military can be blamed on "The People" which helps them to keep their business model unchanged and fairly stable and profitable. In this case, the military leaders and the corporate funders/developers are sharing power over the military, and the politicians may just be puppets handling civil affairs (although they too are likely puppets to the corporation).

A few reasons why militaries take over in some states are:

  • Many of these societies were already non-democratic to begin with, so having a military dictator wasn't anything special. Japan, Germany, China, had major dictators fused with the military. Societies without democratic norms tend to accept dictators easily. (Considering how few democracies would exist in anarcho-capitalist societies the norms of democracies would have been thoroughly extinguished and hence leave such a society without an innate revulsion from dictators. It's like disabling an immune system)
  • Crisis often gives powerful incentives for the people to form dictatorships, often times the people will prioritising dictatorships over democracies even if they have the same resources.
  • The military leaders themselves feel dishonored or that their country is not following the ideology set out, etc and simply decide to take over. The lower military units often don't know what has happened until it's too late, then they're too afraid to act because doing so is still treason.
  • Outright paranoia. If you look through history of tribes, most don't function like direct democracies (or any democracy) neither do they follow dictators. Often they follow the person with "better" ideas and this can fluctuate rapid. Basically, they function in a kind of mob mentality. In many instances in history tribes will do war with eachother for no reason, they have plenty of territory, resources, mates, and there's no immediate crisis. Yet they can become easily paranoid, often seeing threats that are not there and simply doing war.

In terms of mixing a small professional elite and militias, this is the model which a few states do/did have. The best example would be Switzerland, the problem though is that militias are usually never voluntarily (such as in Switzerland) because people almost never want to spend resources working in a militia for practically nothing in return. Another problem is that militias tend to evolve rather quickly into full standing armies (ie, the USA, Vietnam, etc) with conscripting/drafting powers fully intact making them extremely powerful against the people. Affinity is powerful, but it's far from a guarantee, it can just as easily work against freedom, Vietnam started with a small professional elite, the bulk was militias but eventually they took over completely. They had superior air power to the USA (Their fighter pilots were some of the best on Earth), overwhelming ground forces with impeccable coordination, etc. Further, their affinity only works as far as they are influenced by ideas. If a militia group thought a bad idea will be good for their society, well, then that's what will happen. They're doing it "for your own good". You can see this with people being influenced by purchasing the same overtly bad products repeatedly because companies guilt tripped their customers, people have an extremely hard time looking past emotions. Militias don't have a profit loss system and they have numbers, guns and mob mentality (lacking a clear, stable, chain of command often leads to this)

On your points on how an anarcho-capitalist societies would react to employee take overs of PDA's:

Why would customers stop using the services from a company if a union takes over? I have never seen customers express any revulsion from companies because unions take over. Unions tend to gain wide support, sometimes even gaining more customers. Having a union doesn't change the product quality or price. Sometimes the product prices decrease and quality increase because the workers live in the same community and want higher reputation status and may have a more aggregate empathy in play. I've been to a town where the workers bought a electrical plant from the previous owner. They now provide free lighting in beautiful arrangements throughout the town, they have large lighting Christmas events.

Socialist societies have arisen in societies other than feudal societies. At least, depending on the definition of socialism, many anarcho-capitalists have cited NAZI'sm, fascism, etc as socialist movements since they clearly involve massive government takeovers, wealth redistribution and extreme market price fixing. NAZI Germany had many things "free", health care, education, etc they created the worlds first environmental agency (If I recall correctly). They often price fixed wage labour and product prices, determined how much product can be made and who it goes to, etc. Societies that go from feudalism to socialism (USSR, China, etc) just tend to be more of the same (albeit the free market always exists, no matter how hard they tried). On one last note it perhaps may be important to point out that all feudalistic societies tend to have a lot of capitalism. Feudalism is largely based on land ownership through vassalage. However, feudal societies often have extensive free market activity beyond land so much so that through the medieval ages the kings allowed people to use private courts, law merchants, because there was too much activity with too much intricacy for the kings to handle in the free market.