[Eran]

In a recent blog post, Bryan Caplan makes an excellent point about the perceived instability of anarcho-capitalist societies. [Thanks to Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek for the link].

This is a point I have been trying to make for a while, but he is doing a much better job, and so worth bringing to people's attention.

Here is a section:

The lesson: “Crazy” is relative to expectations. A thousand years ago, everyone was used to despotism. No one expected a defeated incumbent to voluntarily hand over power. As a result, refusing to hand over power didn’t seem crazy. Since it didn’t seem crazy, incumbents who refused to hand over power after losing an election probably would have managed to retain power. In modern Sweden, in contrast, everyone is used to democracy. Everyone expects a defeated incumbent to voluntarily hand over power. Refusing to hand over power seems crazy. As a result, refusing to hand over power would end not democracy, but the incumbent’s career.

Why bring this up? Because like the democrat of a thousand years ago, I advocate a radical political change: anarcho-capitalism. After we’ve privatized everything else, I think we should privatize the police and courts, and abolish the government.

Which logically leads to:

So far, so bad. Suppose however that a stable anarcho-capitalist system existed. Then this logic reverses. Since everyone is used to this system, people expect private police firms to amicably resolve disputes. In such a setting, a CEO who advocates a war of conquest would seem crazy - and his pleas to his co-workers would fall on deaf ears. In a stable anarcho-capitalist society, a war-mongering CEO doesn't get a war. He gets fired.

[Sithsaber]

In other words: Just trust me you guys.

This form of fallacy could be adopted to any type of idea, whether it be a super caliphate that respects religious minorities (but even hypothetically this would only work for the peoples of the book) ethnic based microstates or technocratic conglomerates.

[ThereBeDragons]

It wouldn't be called "conquest." It would be called "enforcement of property rights long-deprived" or "ensuring access to easements" or "preemptive action," and companies would come with as many ways to justify it as politicians use to justify war without looking like crazy murderers.

When the republics were being planned, their founders did their best to fill them with checks and balances and systems of accountability, ways to specifically ensure that when it was time for the president to step down he actually stepped down.

Should Barack Obama refuse to relinquish power, Congress will force him to step down, and the military will refuse to obey his commands. The Democrats might have an interest in extending his term indefinitely, but they do not have that power. Even if they tried, it would not succeed, Barack Obama would be removed, and the Democratic cause would be shot for the next fifty years. The military could hold a coup d'etat and enshrine Obama as President-for-Life, but that is unlikely for various reasons:

1. The military has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. They owe no loyalty to Obama as long as he is not acting constitutionally as Commander-in-Chief.
2. Half the military isn't made of Obama supporters to begin with. The top brass is made out of careerists and bureaucrats. It's decentralized into components and components. The vast majority of the rank and file are only in for some years, and return to being civilians.
3. Obama can promise rewards and plunder, but it's doubtful he could ever get enough of them to even imagine that winning the ensuing civil war would even be possible, let alone get them to act on it. The risk would never be worth it.

Barack Obama is a man who believes in the rule of law. So he would never try something like this anyway. But it's important that even if Barack Obama were Hitler come again, that he would never be able to do something like this because it would be, in the most base terms, a unprofitable venture. Nevertheless, he can get the military to go along with pretty much anything that involves beating the shit out of foreign powers, as long as it is nominally in the interests of the nation.

Suppose the CEO of First Defense Inc., who has considerably more employees, armor, and air power than any other defense agency in the region, decides that it wants to set up a government.

The board of directors could vote to overthrow him, but why would they? They have sworn no oaths to uphold the NAP. People feel bad when they break oaths and betray their friends; this is a timeless constant of human society. They don't feel bad when they form governments.

Yes, in your new crazy equilbrium, you could try and form a society where breaking the NAP is morally seen as bad as murder and betrayal, but that is as plausible as forging everyone into the Communist New Man who never shirks and always works. Not going to happen.

The employees themselves have never sworn any oaths to uphold the NAP. Nor do they have the consciousness of service to the people that the military attempts to instill. First Defense Inc. could try and instill that consciousness - but why would they fucking bother? You might as well expect companies to donate billions out of pure charity and not because it's good for PR. They will hesitate to rape and despoil, but if First Defense orders them to occupy a crossroads in the name of security, people will listen. Barring immense conditioning and acculturation to the contrary, people obey orders that come down the line.

Checks and balances at the highest level of government are meant to ensure that those orders are never twisted to serve a few instead of the many. It is a system meant to make sure that bad men will serve good causes.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Expecting a company beholden to nothing to voluntarily control itself is like expecting companies to audit themselves for fraud. (Profitable fraud. Of course fraud that is bad business costs the company and must be removed, but only because it's bad business.)

There may be an anarcho-capitalist equilibrium, but it is at best a metastable one at the top of a very high hill rising out of a very deep pit. Nobody wants to gamble on something like that.

[Eran]

Should Barack Obama refuse to relinquish power, Congress will force him to step down, and the military will refuse to obey his commands.

You are absolutely right.

But ask yourself, why would the military refuse to obey his commands? After all, he is their commander in chief, and would surely come up with some excuse about a "state of emergency" to justify his move.

Why was Hitler (also elected democratically) able to dismantle Germany's democratic institutions, and Obama couldn't?

Again, I am not arguing Obama could do that, but ask you to find a reason that wouldn't equally work for Nazi Germany, or in any of the many other examples of leaders who violated the (written or not) constitutions of their countries?

Do you seriously believe the difference between Obama and Hitler was the oath American soldiers took to uphold the Constitution? That if German soldiers circa 1933 have taken a similar oath, Hitler's commands would have been ignored???

Yes, in your new crazy equilibrium, you could try and form a society where breaking the NAP is morally seen as bad as murder and betrayal, but that is as plausible as forging everyone into the Communist New Man who never shirks and always works. Not going to happen.

The two aren't comparable.

Every society represents an equilibrium. People obey their leader or the law because other people do. Why was Stalin obeyed by his troops? Because any one person (or even a small group) realises that, given the attitude of most other people around him, disobeying Stalin would cost his life.

Now think about members of an anarcho-capitalist society. They know that people who violate the NAP (and doing so as an employee doesn't relieve you of your responsibility, unlike a soldier or police officer who enjoys qualified immunity when obeying orders) are held liable for the consequence of their action, and can have their lives effectively destroyed.

Now assume your CEO issues an order to his employees to do something which is clearly illegal (i.e. NAP-violating). Would they follow his order? Obviously not. If they did, they risk themselves, and have every reason (given the equilibrium within society) to be apprehended and made to pay. A CEO issuing such orders will be ignored, laughed at, or, at worse, arrested and treated like the criminal he would be.

Barring immense conditioning and acculturation to the contrary, people obey orders that come down the line.

Nobody undergoes conditioning and acculturation to obey more than US Marines. Yet do you think the Marines would obey a command to take over the Capitol Building and arrest all members of Congress?


At the end of the day, theoretical or "paper" checks and balances, as well as "oaths", in and by themselves, are worthless. Countless examples from other countries (which had their own pretty democratic constitutions) prove that. In the opposite direction, the unquestionable stability of countries without a written constitution or American-style "checks and balances" (say the UK) further prove that such checks and balances are neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure democratic stability.

If you are worried about a scenario in which a single company acquires more fire-power than the rest of society combined (a highly unlikely scenario), you should be most worried about the end result of such situation, namely the current arrangement whereby government holds an absolute monopoly over serious fire-power.

[ThereBeDragons]

But ask yourself, why would the military refuse to obey his commands? After all, he is their commander in chief, and would surely come up with some excuse about a "state of emergency" to justify his move.

If the United States were truly in a state of emergency, they might listen.

Why was Hitler (also elected democratically) able to dismantle Germany's democratic institutions, and Obama couldn't? Again, I am not arguing Obama could do that, but ask you to find a reason that wouldn't equally work for Nazi Germany, or in any of the many other examples of leaders who violated the (written or not) constitutions of their countries?

Do you seriously believe the difference between Obama and Hitler was the oath American soldiers took to uphold the Constitution? That if German soldiers circa 1933 have taken a similar oath, Hitler's commands would have been ignored???

The professional German military was somewhat sympathetic to Hitler to begin with. The Weimar Republic barely controlled the Reichswehr. Be this as it may, the majority of Hitler's dirty work was done by the SA anyway, which was only the paramilitary wing of the Nazi party begin with, and swore no oaths besides that of party loyalty. Even if they swore an oath to uphold the Weimar Constitution (and why would they do that,) it would obviously be total bullshit. Most of our military didn't swear their oath to our constitution with the full knowledge that they were going to shit on it.

Mature liberal democracies subordinate the army to the government. Furthermore, there is no notion of "personal loyalty" in the armed forces of most modern democracies. Generals do not think of themselves as "Clinton men" or "Bush men." Anyone trying to start a cult of personality is hounded to death politically, even our dear Obama, who as far as I can tell has shown no signs that he actually intends to perform a coup.

The presidency, defense secretariat, and army secretariat are civilian positions, all of which generally rotate every four to eight years. They are furthermore subject to the control of Congress, whose authority is only defied in exceptional circumstances and at great cost. Under all of them do you finally get to to the Army Chief of Staff, the highest ranking general in the US Army, but his post, too, rotates. And his position is of administration; his actual command is limited. The US military itself is directly commanded by the Combatant Commanders of Africa Command, Central Command, European Command, Northern Command, Southern Command, Special Operations Command, Strategic Command, and Transportation Command, all of whom report directly to the Secretary of Defense (rather than through the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Secretary of the Army,) are nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate.

So you want to launch a coup. Good! Who are you going to get on the board? Say the President is in on it, and so is the Secretary of Defense. The Army Chief of Staff has served the United States, the Constitution, and many different administrations loyally for decades - as have, in fact, all the generals you will need to get on board. Say you get the Chief of Staff. But you will have to have planted a lot of agents in the military if you want to keep them loyal to you personally (what, twenty years ago?) and then somehow get all these sleeper agents through the Senate and into all the various commands. And CENTCOM is divided into Army, Marine, Navy, and Air Force commands. There's too much bureaucracy. Too much inertia.

Suppose Obama wants to get the US Third Army (Central) on your side, whose commander is Vincent K. Brooks. Should he openly defy the constitution, you need to ensure that his lieutenants will not defect to his loyal deputy commander, Gary Cheek. But he reports to CENTCOM unified commander General Lloyd Austin, whose deputy commander is Vice Admiral Robert Harward. Only then do you finally get to our Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel - who, by the way, needed to be confirmed by the United States Senate (along with, well, everyone else), and that one was a bitter fight over some dumb ideological minutiae. If people thought he had a chance in hell in supporting a coup d'etat to make Obama President-for-Life he would never stood a chance.

Not only do you need to deal with the opposition, you will need to deal with recalcitrant members of your own party, who are nominally beholden only to their constituency, not the Democratic Party itself. So not only will you need a filibuster-proof party three fifths majority of the Senate to even get your Defense Minister in the door, you need to make sure that your party loyally stands behind you. Boehner cannot even get his party to line up behind his tax proposals. I can only imagine the kind of time he would have getting them to support a coup d'etat. To be sure, Obama named some of these lesser commanders himself... but in military matters, there are some candidates that are so obvious that not naming them would be weird. Where will he find the political leeway to bypass obvious candidates for his own sleeper agents? Such breaches of standard protocol would certainly raise some alarms.

And now, finally, suppose you've got CENTCOM, US Third Army. Well, CENTCOM reports to the Secretary of Defense, who you do have... but do you have the Department of Defense? That will be filled with an immense number of civilian careerists. They serve the Secretary, but they may not support him in a coup d'etat. And I haven't even started on the Pentagon.

Too many players. Too much distributed power to get enough of them on board. Too many checks, too many balances. At every level there is dissent. Even if half the people I've named so far were literally Hitlerbama's loyal right hand men (which is already fantastically unlikely), would they be able to launch their coup at all? Will the brigade commanders follow? The battalions? It's not certain. It would be stifled at every turn.

Now assume your CEO issues an order to his employees to do something which is clearly illegal (i.e. NAP-violating). Would they follow his order? Obviously not. If they did, they risk themselves, and have every reason (given the equilibrium within society) to be apprehended and made to pay. A CEO issuing such orders will be ignored, laughed at, or, at worse, arrested and treated like the criminal he would be.

Apprehended by who? Made to pay by who?

Nobody undergoes conditioning and acculturation to obey more than US Marines. Yet do you think the Marines would obey a command to take over the Capitol Building and arrest all members of Congress?

I was using the US military as an example of a force that had been acculturated to serve, not just obey.

At the end of the day, theoretical or "paper" checks and balances, as well as "oaths", in and by themselves, are worthless. Countless examples from other countries (which had their own pretty democratic constitutions) prove that. In the opposite direction, the unquestionable stability of countries without a written constitution or American-style "checks and balances" (say the UK) further prove that such checks and balances are neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure democratic stability.

And hands are neither necessary nor sufficient to be a truck driver, but they sure help. All that matters at the end of the days is the guns, who has them, and who they are listening to. That doesn't mean that institutions are powerless.

If you are worried about a scenario in which a single company acquires more fire-power than the rest of society combined (a highly unlikely scenario), you should be most worried about the end result of such situation, namely the current arrangement whereby government holds an absolute monopoly over serious fire-power.

Fortunately the government is both theoretically and practically accountable to the people. A company doesn't need to have more firepower than everyone else in the world combined. They simply have to have more power than anyone else in a given area, and enough of it such that nobody else feels like declaring war on them (sorry, engaging in defensive maneuvers to eliminate the aggressor) because they decided that it's illegal to sell heroin within these arbitrary lines (NAP violated! NAP violated!).

Companies will shit on people to the best of their ability (which is currently in any way that is legal) whenever it will make them a profit. Period. Governments may be full of idiots, sold politicians, and everything else, but at least the people there are not out to flay me alive if it'll increase their quarterly profits.

[Lightman]

You're also ignoring that the Weimar government never had legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the population. The Republic was founded in revolution; politics, throughout its history, were fought not just in the Reichstag, but in the streets; even the party most devoted to stable democracy, the Social Democrats, engaged in street-fighting and paramilitary action against its enemies; it was struck by crippling hyperinflation, unemployment, depression; the memory of the monarchy was still fresh in the mind of many, and many saw it as the legitimate government of Germany; the German constitution granted the President staggering emergency powers, which could and were used dictatorially; the President, Hindenberg, barely respected the legitimacy of his own government; the army was by and large controlled by an elitist Prussian officer corps that saw itself as more legitimate than the civilian government; etc. There is very little resemblance between the modern United States and Weimar Germany. Hitler came to power under very favorable circumstances.

[Eran]

Mature liberal democracies subordinate the army to the government.

...

Anyone trying to start a cult of personality is hounded to death politically, even our dear Obama

...

They are furthermore subject to the control of Congress, whose authority is only defied in exceptional circumstances and at great cost.

...

So you want to launch a coup. Good! Who are you going to get on the board? Say the President is in on it, and so is the Secretary of Defense. The Army Chief of Staff has served the United States, the Constitution, and many different administrations loyally for decades - as have, in fact, all the generals you will need to get on board. Say you get the Chief of Staff. But you will have to have planted a lot of agents in the military if you want to keep them loyal to you personally (what, twenty years ago?) and then somehow get all these sleeper agents through the Senate and into all the various commands. And CENTCOM is divided into Army, Marine, Navy, and Air Force commands. There's too much bureaucracy. Too much inertia.

...

Too many players. Too much distributed power to get enough of them on board.
[/quote]
You are absolutely right. In part, you are describing in great detail and fidelity how the current democratic equilibrium is realised. It is important that you understand that the stability is entirely a function of the political sentiments (respect for the Constitution) of the American people (or, at least, their armed forces).

No formal institution or written document can ensure that stability, nor is any formal institution or written document necessary to ensure it. It is all in the minds of the people.

Apprehended by who? Made to pay by who?

Apprehended and made to pay by agents hired by the people whose property rights he tried to violate, pursuing legal opinions issued by courts widely respected within society.

I was using the US military as an example of a force that had been acculturated to serve, not just obey.

They are acculturated to serve by obeying. Marines undergoing basic training aren't trained to examine the constitutionality of the orders issued by their commanding officer. They are trained to obey, immediately and without thought.

All that matters at the end of the days is the guns, who has them, and who they are listening to.

Perfect. With that in mind, let's compare a stable democracy to a stable anarchy:

1. Who has guns?
Democracy: virtually only a single organisation, the armed forces.
Anarchy: A large number of independent private forces, from weapon-bearing individuals through local police agencies to specialised private military agencies

2. Who are they listening to?
Democracy: trained and conditioned to obey the chain of command, at the top of which there is a single person. Motivated, at least in part, by patriotic zeal.
Anarchy: employees, working for a pay-check.

3. How likely are they to listen?
Democracy: Soldiers and police officers enjoy immunity and are highly unlikely to be prosecuted for obeying commands
Anarchy: Employees of private agencies enjoy no special privilege. If found guilty of a crime, would be treated as common criminals

4. Who is likely to order them?
Democracy: A politician, by definition a person hungry for power and a skilled orator and demagogue
Anarchy: A CEO, commercially-oriented manager

5. What is the end-game?
Democracy: Taking over the reigns of an established government
Anarchy: Having to pacify an armed population which views your action as despotic crimes

Any way you look at it, an armed coup is much easier to pull in a democracy. And since we both agree that such coup is virtually unthinkable in a stable democracy like the US, it is much more so in an anarchy.

[ThereBeDragons]

Apprehended and made to pay by agents hired by the people whose property rights he tried to violate, pursuing legal opinions issued by courts widely respected within society.

And suppose one court says yes and the other says no? Suppose no agent wants to go to war with First Defense Inc. over someone's spilled milk?

They are acculturated to serve by obeying. Marines undergoing basic training aren't trained to examine the constitutionality of the orders issued by their commanding officer. They are trained to obey, immediately and without thought.

Perhaps a rank-and-filed Marine might storm Congress if his commanding officer made up a cock-and-bull story about how they were preventing a coup from happening, but as you climb up the ranks you eventually get to an officer corps capable of slightly more thought than "obey." They are sworn to serve, in practice they obey, and this oath only becomes relevant when one commander says "coup" and the other says "Constitution." Most would-be conspirators wouldn't be willing to stake their lives on the chance that they choose "coup."

Democracy: virtually only a single organisation, the armed forces.
Anarchy: A large number of independent private forces, from weapon-bearing individuals through local police agencies to specialised private military agencies

There may not be a large number. Mergers and acquisitions happen all the time.

2. Who are they listening to?
Democracy: trained and conditioned to obey the chain of command, at the top of which there is a single person. Motivated, at least in part, by patriotic zeal.
Anarchy: employees, working for a pay-check.

Please. Employees listen to their employers (and the bosses assigned to tell these employees what to do), soldiers to their commanders. You might as well say that the soldiers in American are ordered about by the citizens.

Democracy: Soldiers and police officers enjoy immunity and are highly unlikely to be prosecuted for obeying commands
Anarchy: Employees of private agencies enjoy no special privilege. If found guilty of a crime, would be treated as common criminals

Common criminals in the employ and with the protection of the large military agency they work for. China could have been invaded by the United States and prosecuted in the ICC for crimes against humanity for Tiananmen Square, but in practice nobody did that because China is big and has an army.

Democracy: A politician, by definition a person hungry for power and a skilled orator and demagogue
Anarchy: A CEO, commercially-oriented manager

A CEO is almost certainly going to be hungry for power and a skilled orator and demagogue. What's more, he is also going to be hungry for profits.

Democracy: Taking over the reigns of an established government
Anarchy: Having to pacify an armed population which views your action as despotic crimes

Getting the whole society to view government as a despotic crime is as likely as getting the whole society to view shirking as an unconscionable crime. Possible in the fantastic utopias of deranged communists and anarchists. Impossible in reality.

[ThereBeDragons]

You are absolutely right. In part, you are describing in great detail and fidelity how the current democratic equilibrium is realised. It is important that you understand that the stability is entirely a function of the political sentiments (respect for the Constitution) of the American people (or, at least, their armed forces).

No formal institution or written document can ensure that stability, nor is any formal institution or written document necessary to ensure it. It is all in the minds of the people.

The formal institution and written documents exist to ensure that these sentiments perpetuate themselves, and create an environment where dissent is so intolerable that it never even has a chance to take root. Somebody who has had "serve, obey, protect" drilled into his head for a decade is likely to come to believe it. Governments convince the majority of this through their institutions and restrain the minority with the threat of violence.

There is no reason to believe that the owners of First Defense Inc. would perform similar efforts to drill the NAP into the minds of their employees.

[Eran]

And suppose one court says yes and the other says no?

Then the two courts will agree on a third one, and abide by its decision.

Suppose no agent wants to go to war with First Defense Inc. over someone's spilled milk?

And suppose no army unit wants to go to war with a rogue Marine unit?

First Defence Inc., once ruled against by a credible court, are criminals. All their involved employees are. They would be subject to arrest wherever they go. Their bank accounts could be frozen. Their essential supplies cut.

The most important point is that all the employees of First Defence will recognise their CEO as a criminal. They would know that his orders are illegal, and will make them into accomplices.

You would need for not just the largest, but the overwhelmingly most powerful organisation in the country to be comprised primarily of people willing to become criminals (in their own minds!), just because their CEO told them to.

There may not be a large number. Mergers and acquisitions happen all the time.

Indeed. But over the entire country, even a large organisation is no longer cohesive. Police-like forces would have to be widely distributed to be effective. Can you imagine McDonald's pooling all their employees from all over the country for a desperate stand?

And again, the democratic alternative is to have a single organisation. Just one.

Please. Employees listen to their employers (and the bosses assigned to tell these employees what to do), soldiers to their commanders.

People routinely give their lives for a patriotic cause. Very few do so merely to collect a paycheck.

Common criminals in the employ and with the protection of the large military agency they work for. China could have been invaded by the United States and prosecuted in the ICC for crimes against humanity for Tiananmen Square, but in practice nobody did that because China is big and has an army.

Indeed. And you don't have to be China. Very few countries actually get invaded, even small ones right besides powerful ones. Costa Rica has no army, and still hasn't been invaded.

The point is that even in the international arena, people tend to respect certain norms.

And Chinese soldiers would fight protecting their homeland, not merely for their current employer.

A CEO is almost certainly going to be hungry for power and a skilled orator and demagogue. What's more, he is also going to be hungry for profits.

Precisely.

And there is much more profit maintaining your position as the CEO of the largest force in the country, than in risking your life and freedom by becoming a criminal. What would be the upside? Being the despised head of a precarious military dictatorship in a country full of armed people, all of whom think of you as a common criminal?

Getting the whole society to view government as a despotic crime is as likely as getting the whole society to view shirking as an unconscionable crime.

No, it is as likely as the whole society viewing a President refusing the vacate his office as a despot. The analogy is precise - in each case, the person would be violating the basic political principles which people view as the foundation of their freedom.

[ThereBeDragons]

Then the two courts will agree on a third one, and abide by its decision.

Will they? Why? Suppose they deadlock?

And suppose no army unit wants to go to war with a rogue Marine unit?

They will, under orders.

You would need for not just the largest, but the overwhelmingly most powerful organisation in the country to be comprised primarily of people willing to become criminals (in their own minds!), just because their CEO told them to.

No, not in their own minds. All they will be doing is violating the NAP. In the minds of me, countless others, and the vast majority of people who have ever been alive and ever will be alive, this does not make them criminals. Assume for the moment that the CEO did not do something outlandish like declare that he was forming a dictatorship. He just decided that within certain boundaries, the manufacture of biological weapons would not be allowed. This makes him a criminal, but I honestly can't bring myself to care about it.

And it doesn't need to be the most powerful organization in the country. It only needs to be the most powerful organization in a small area, and sufficiently powerful that nobody feels like invading it.

Can you imagine McDonald's pooling all their employees from all over the country for a desperate stand?

Can you imagine the US Army doing it?

And again, the democratic alternative is to have a single organisation. Just one.

I hardly see how two democratic organizations would be any better since society would gridlock the first time they came to a dispute.

People routinely give their lives for a patriotic cause. Very few do so merely to collect a paycheck.

So who's going to go to war with First Defense, if a paycheck is not enough incentive to risk life and limb?

And Chinese soldiers would fight protecting their homeland, not merely for their current employer.

That much is certainly true. Yet these Chinese soldiers are criminals one and all, too.

And there is much more profit maintaining your position as the CEO of the largest force in the country, than in risking your life and freedom by becoming a criminal. What would be the upside? Being the despised head of a precarious military dictatorship in a country full of armed people, all of whom think of you as a common criminal?

Setting yourself up as a tinpot dictator is the most exaggerated of possible moves. Suppose he makes some minor NAP-violating move. Like declaring that "no, court, your verdict was shit and I'll just take what is rightfully mine - thanks." Or the examples involving biological weapons or heroin that I mentioned above.

No, it is as likely as the whole society viewing a President refusing to vacate his office as a despot. The analogy is precise - in each case, the person would be violating the basic political principles which people view as the foundation of their freedom.

That's because an unelected dictator is a despot almost by definition, but even libertarians (already radical) don't find governments despotic as long as they restrict themselves to a small set of responsibilities. Your crazy equilibrium requires a total reconstruction of society so radical that it rests firmly within the realm of fantasy. In a Communist utopia, someone who shirks may be violating the basic ethical principle that keeps society afloat and is the foundation of prosperity. If everyone shirked, society would collapse! That doesn't mean that such an ethical framework is practical or will ever happen.

[Lightman]

Eran, I'm just noting that you are ignoring my post, which states clear reasons why Hitler could come to power in Weimar Germany; these conditions do not exist today in the United States.

[Eran]

Will they? Why? Suppose they deadlock?

Because it is in their interest to do so.

Consider your question in the context of an international disputes. The world's hundreds of nations constantly interact with each other. Disputes must arise all the time. Yet war is very rare.

Why? What if the US and Canada disagree. Suppose they deadlock. Do you really think the probability is high that they will resolve their difference by resorting to war? No? Why not? Because that would make no sense; would be unacceptable politically; would go against the political sentiment of their respective societies.

The exact same answers would apply to serious, credible courts in a stable anarchy. Only more so, as government decision-makers can externalise the cost of wars (financing them through taxation, borrowing and inflation, and using conscription to get the cannon fodder), while private entities cannot.

They will, under orders.

Note your double standard. On the one hand, you assume that the military forces under a democracy will obey legal orders (even if it puts their lives at risk), but not illegal orders. On the other hand, you assume that military forces under an anarchy will obey illegal orders (by their CEO), but refuse legal orders (if it puts their lives at risk).

No, not in their own minds. All they will be doing is violating the NAP. In the minds of me, countless others, and the vast majority of people who have ever been alive and ever will be alive, this does not make them criminals.

And all our rogue Marines would do is violate the Constitution. In the minds of me, countless others, and the vast majority of people who have ever been alive, this does not make them criminals.

You seemed to have missed the main point. The critical difference between a stable democracy and a stable anarchy is precisely what ordinary people consider to be criminal. What are the norms of society.

We, today, live in a society in which the Constitution defines the norms of legitimate use of force.

For a stable anarchy to exist, society has to accept the NAP as defining the norms of the legitimate use of force.

The entire description of how an anarchy can become stable is premised on this assumption - an assumption no more "crazy" from today's perspective than the assumption that a nation could come to regard something like the Constitution as the source of political legitimacy would have been seen 1,000 (or even 300) years ago.

Assume for the moment that the CEO did not do something outlandish like declare that he was forming a dictatorship. He just decided that within certain boundaries, the manufacture of biological weapons would not be allowed. This makes him a criminal, but I honestly can't bring myself to care about it.

The same deception scenario could easily be imagined in a modern democracy. The President doesn't announce that he will become a military dictator. No. This is just a "temporary" state of emergency...

And it doesn't need to be the most powerful organization in the country. It only needs to be the most powerful organization in a small area, and sufficiently powerful that nobody feels like invading it.

All legitimate institutions and organisations would be threatened, and highly motivated to suppress such a move.

Additionally, the CEO and all his employees would be considered outlaws anywhere outside this little area. You are relying on a significant group of people deciding to give up their previous lives as law-abiding members of society, and become outlaws, prisoners in their own little enclave.

Finally, even within that enclave, the rogue corporation would be considered a despotic, illegitimate and criminal gang. Local residents will revolt against them and fight for what they perceive (correctly) as their freedom.

And since all involved (CEO and employees) are primarily profit-driven (rather than ideological zealots), this entire move would have to be somehow profitable. Profitable enough to warrant the risk of arrest and disgrace. Highly unlikely.

I hardly see how two democratic organizations would be any better since society would gridlock the first time they came to a dispute.

I wasn't suggesting that. However, the idea isn't as silly as you make it sound. Again, recall that in the international arena, the vast majority of disputes (virtually all disputes between democratic western nations) are resolved peacefully.

So who's going to go to war with First Defence, if a paycheck is not enough incentive to risk life and limb?

People would risk their lives for causes they believe in. Viewed as a criminal organization, those fighting them would be risking their lives for a principle. Compare them to police officers in today's society.

Yet these Chinese soldiers are criminals one and all, too.

Again, you are missing the main point. Chinese soldiers aren't criminals in their own minds. They have been acculturated to believe that fighting for their country isn't just legitimate, it is noble.

The employees of First Defence Inc. have, but the assumptions of the scenario, been acculturated to believe that the NAP is the basis for the legitimate use of force (just as today's American soldiers have been acculturated to believe that the Constitution is). In their own minds, as well as the minds of all around them, the CEO and all those following his orders are criminals.

Suppose he makes some minor NAP-violating move. Like declaring that "no, court, your verdict was shit and I'll just take what is rightfully mine - thanks."

Suppose the President of the US decides, rather than storm the Capitol and declare himself dictator for life, to simply ignore an inconvenient decision of the US Supreme Court. How long do you think he will last in office?

That's because an unelected dictator is a despot almost by definition, but even libertarians (already radical) don't find governments despotic as long as they restrict themselves to a small set of responsibilities.

Some libertarians (such as myself) do view all governments as despotic.

How would you feel about a US President who decides to ignore a US Supreme Court decision? A despot?

Your crazy equilibrium requires a total reconstruction of society so radical that it rests firmly within the realm of fantasy.

No more so than the transition that took place over the past 1,000 years (or, in France, over a span of just a few revolutionary years).

Unlike communist utopias which require a radical re-alignment of Man's priorities, from the self to the large community of strangers, the re-alignment required here is from viewing one set of principles (e.g. the Constitution) to another (the NAP) as the basis for legitimate use of force. In the past, we have observed societies in which a range of different principles (the Divine Right of Kings, rule by religious decree, rule by the Party) served the same role.

We already know that human society is flexible enough to accommodate a range of principles of that nature, whereas there has never been a human society in which people were motivated by caring for strangers more than by caring for themselves and a small circle of family/friends/neighbours.

Eran, I'm just noting that you are ignoring my post, which states clear reasons why Hitler could come to power in Weimar Germany; these conditions do not exist today in the United States.

Apologies.

The reason is that I am not interested in these specific historic scenario, but in the general principle.

The general principle is that an undemocratic military take-over is unthinkable in some societies (the US being but one example; the UK, constitutionally very different, is an equally good one), while not just thinkable, but almost routine in many others (with Hitler's takeover being just one example, but the history of fragile democracies in Latin America, South East Asia and Africa providing countless others).

What explains the difference between societies falling into the first category (call them "stable democracies") and the second ("unstable democracies")?

The difference isn't formal institutions or written documents. Stable democracies exhibit a range of formal institutions. Some have a written Constitution, while others (the UK, for example) do not. By contrast, many unstable democracies had both formal institutions and written Constitutions that mimicked (often very closely) those of stable democracies.

The difference, I argue, is in the political culture of the respective societies. It is, in other words, in the minds of the members of society.