You seem to have a much higher faith in free-will to over come centuries of violence and strife, which has transcended all human systems throughout time.
Arguing that humans are fundemantally violent by using examples in which the humans were in violent situations proves absolutely nothing. It's much more logical and consistant to argue that humans are rational; when faced with more to gain by using violence, violence is used, when faced with more to gain by using nonviolence, nonviolence is used.
Do you have children? When I said 'my own observational history' I was referring to such things as what you see with small children. They are little savages without constant repetition and discipline! They grab what isn't theirs and frequently resort to violence when angered by their peers, hitting or biting or kicking! They will only change this behavior if someone more powerful than them takes action to correct them. EDIT: See
this thread for discussion which supports this assertion!
The violent criminals in our penal systems overwhelmingly come from fatherless homes. They end up that way because they lacked the correction I spoke of above. They aren't irrational, nor are all of them stupid. Without some authority to lock them away from a given society, they could well acquire arms and power and subject the weak in a totally stateless society.
If you look at the global anarchy among states, you see the same thing. You have regions where helpless people are ruled by totalitarian war lords, such was the case in Iraq. The neighbors do nothing to stop them, the big kids on the global block do nothing - in fact some actually cooperate with these guys. Look again to Baathist Iraq's deals with Russia, France & Germany!
So I do think it demonstrates something about human nature, if one looks from the micro examples in a nursery room to the macro examples on the world stage.
I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows.
We don't need to, we only need to make it a more profitable option to cooperate.
I don't think it possible.
EDIT: The reason is because it is many times easier to just take the bread the little red hen made after months of planting, tending, harvesting, milling and baking it! If you have a lot of power, cooperation may appear less profitable.
So you believe the Free State Project is destined to fail?
What would success look like? Is the common goal of all free staters Anarcho-Capitalism, or a drastically limited state? If the former, I'd say yes, it will fail. The latter has a chance, but against well financed odds.
I think competition, cooperation and persuasion is the best way to live together in peace. However, those who do not must be dealt with. That is reality.
I agree. However, being 'dealt with' does not require violence. If I initiated force, or refused to pay court costs, and an organization tracked my violations, and businesses would not hire me, wouldn't that be dealing with me? Wouldn't that make me seriously consider not being violent?
I sincerely think it a utopian belief violent persons can be dealt with non-violently. The hypothetical person above could just as likely join a disreputable business or organization.
If people are rational, as you've said, then some end consumers might only take their own cost benefit into consideration, ignore moral considerations and would not care if he was getting stolen goods or those produced on the backs of some oppressed group.
I think the free market cannot solve the problem of people who wish to rule over others. It cannot overcome tribalist tendencies. When I try to reason out what society might look like under An-Cap, I cannot escape that strong men will maintain order over given areas, especially areas that are essentially lawless. Less able people will provide money or services to these strongmen for protection.
Imagine there are 10 security forces and free entry into the security market in say, New Hampshire. If one becomes rogue, the others prevent it from extorting the populace. An added check is that most residents own firearms. Exactly how is this situation not solving the problem of people attempting to rule over others?
First let us realize that to get from reality to your ideal would not ever be at a place where security forces are 'legit' so that some fraction can go rogue, but I'll play along anyway.
What if the one rogue force had always been rogue and looked really hot in her X-man uniform... no wait, what? Where was I? Oh yeah, the rogue force was bent on advancing weaponry to annihilate the remaining 9. Since the other 9 were mandated by AnCap principles to only use defensive force, The R force knows this and covertly develops a biological or chemical weapons which kill the fighters but leaves the property unharmed. Once they attack, it is likely too late for those protected by the other 9.
If you go into the woods and build a house, and then I come along after you and claim you are my serf and must pay me, that is immoral. What I am proposing is that you build a house and then you hire me, which is no different than hiring a maid.
What if the woods are your woods? By what mechanism would you prove title to the land under AnCap?
I agree you shouldn't be forced to join a collective, even one justified on the above reasoning, perhaps a compromise would be to allow individuals to claim sovereignty in the same manner American Indian tribes do? Governments would then get funds from you when providing you with services you pay for, no?
If that was so, the government would not be a government, it would be a business. Governments are involuntary, businesses are voluntary.
Good point. I'm guilty of ignoring the fact that I largely want what you want, I just believe humans need a common authority for certain basics, or humans devolve into tribal factions over whatever they most need or desire. I do think the best government for these basics are local, however. I also think we need protection from the other states on the planet.
Finally, I appreciate your willingness to slosh this out. I think AnCap is good and logical in the abstract, but faces the practical problems I've already mentioned.