Freedomain Radio

I was having a debate, trying to argue for DRO's, but my opponent had questions I honestly could not answer well I'm dying to find some answers to these and I'd really appreciate your help:

 

1. How would a DRO that is lying about weapons purchases and hiding weapons from 3rd party inspectors be stopped from taking over violently?

 

2. Couldn't a DRO just lie about the "10 million dollar deal" just long enough to become organized and powerful enough to take over?

 

3. What if a DRO grows quite a bit and then a new guy comes in and starts murdering people and tries to start a new state?

 

4. How would competing, individual DRO's fight against a large-scale attack such as nuclear/biological weapons or a large scale invasion from a well-armed nation?

 

5. How many people would actually have fears or care enough to be constantly watching the DRO for any suspicious activity (I'll admit it's a cynical question to begin with, but I didn't have an answer)?

 

6. Wouldn't a DRO be unstoppable if they found just one corrupt bank willing to not seize the DRO's assets?

 

7. Wouldn't DRO's just turn in to large gangs, fighting each other for power? (I said that people wouldn't fund or support them if they did this, but they then noted that by this time they could just start subjugating the people under their respective contracts)

 

It might help to turn the tables a bit. Below, I have answered each question with a question. Hope it helps.

 

1. How would a DRO that is lying about weapons purchases and hiding weapons from 3rd party inspectors be stopped from taking over violently?

How would the Executive branch of a government, if it is lying about accruing military power for the protection of the populace, be stopped from violently taking over the country?

 

2. Couldn't a DRO just lie about the "10 million dollar deal" just long enough to become organized and powerful enough to take over?

Couldn't politicians just lie about their campaign promises just long enough to gain power and take over? (ahem, Nazi Party)

 

3. What if a DRO grows quite a bit and then a new guy comes in and starts murdering people and tries to start a new state?

What if the legal powers of the government are expanded quite a bit and then a new President or Party comes in and starts imprisoning/murdering people in an attempt to gain a dictatorship?

 

4. How would competing, individual DRO's fight against a large-scale attack such as nuclear/biological weapons or a large scale invasion from a well-armed nation?

How would separate communities, without a standing army or large tax base, fight against a large-scale invasion from the most powerful military in the world? (Hint: American Revolution) Also, voluntaryist societies can have nuclear/biological weapons too. Keep in mind, there are plenty of historical examples of large, advanced militaries proving unable to take over territories defended by small, guerilla forces.

 

5. How many people would actually have fears or care enough to be constantly watching the DRO for any suspicious activity (I'll admit it's a cynical question to begin with, but I didn't have an answer)?

How many people would actually have fears or care enough to be constantly watching their government for any suspicious activity or concentrations of power?

 

6. Wouldn't a DRO be unstoppable if they found just one corrupt bank willing to not seize the DRO's assets?

Wouldn't a state military be unstoppable if they found just one corrupt Congress willing to not withdraw funding?

 

7. Wouldn't DRO's just turn in to large gangs, fighting each other for power? (I said that people wouldn't fund or support them if they did this, but they then noted that by this time they could just start subjugating the people under their respective contracts)

Wouldn't states just turn into large gangs, fighting each other for world-power? If people revolted, couldn't they just start subjugating them under threat of force?

 

 

I think you'll pretty much find that any argument questioning the fragility of the DRO arrangement can be applied just as well, if not better, to statism. I'd rather live in a society that was at risk of coercion (voluntaryism), than one that guarantees it (statism). I understand the concern that a DRO could become a non-"representative," and thus less accountable and more tyrannical state. However, it is false to assume that a certain form of statism (i.e. a republic) is less susceptible to tyranny than a voluntaryist society.

Very insightful thanks a lot.

 

While these answers are great, I'd love to hear someone's opinions on how people or DRO's themselves would theoretically do or not do these things.

Oneironaut:

It might help to turn the tables a bit. Below, I have answered each question with a question. Hope it helps.

 

1. How would a DRO that is lying about weapons purchases and hiding weapons from 3rd party inspectors be stopped from taking over violently?

How would the Executive branch of a government, if it is lying about accruing military power for the protection of the populace, be stopped from violently taking over the country?

 

2. Couldn't a DRO just lie about the "10 million dollar deal" just long enough to become organized and powerful enough to take over?

Couldn't politicians just lie about their campaign promises just long enough to gain power and take over? (ahem, Nazi Party)

 

3. What if a DRO grows quite a bit and then a new guy comes in and starts murdering people and tries to start a new state?

What if the legal powers of the government are expanded quite a bit and then a new President or Party comes in and starts imprisoning/murdering people in an attempt to gain a dictatorship?

 

4. How would competing, individual DRO's fight against a large-scale attack such as nuclear/biological weapons or a large scale invasion from a well-armed nation?

How would separate communities, without a standing army or large tax base, fight against a large-scale invasion from the most powerful military in the world? (Hint: American Revolution) Also, voluntaryist societies can have nuclear/biological weapons too. Keep in mind, there are plenty of historical examples of large, advanced militaries proving unable to take over territories defended by small, guerilla forces.

 

5. How many people would actually have fears or care enough to be constantly watching the DRO for any suspicious activity (I'll admit it's a cynical question to begin with, but I didn't have an answer)?

How many people would actually have fears or care enough to be constantly watching their government for any suspicious activity or concentrations of power?

 

6. Wouldn't a DRO be unstoppable if they found just one corrupt bank willing to not seize the DRO's assets?

Wouldn't a state military be unstoppable if they found just one corrupt Congress willing to not withdraw funding?

 

7. Wouldn't DRO's just turn in to large gangs, fighting each other for power? (I said that people wouldn't fund or support them if they did this, but they then noted that by this time they could just start subjugating the people under their respective contracts)

Wouldn't states just turn into large gangs, fighting each other for world-power? If people revolted, couldn't they just start subjugating them under threat of force?

 

 

I think you'll pretty much find that any argument questioning the fragility of the DRO arrangement can be applied just as well, if not better, to statism. I'd rather live in a society that was at risk of coercion (voluntaryism), than one that guarantees it (statism). I understand the concern that a DRO could become a non-"representative," and thus less accountable and more tyrannical state. However, it is false to assume that a certain form of statism (i.e. a republic) is less susceptible to tyranny than a voluntaryist society.

You did not give one answer to any of these questions. A comparsion isn't a sufficient answer to crucial questions - not really an answer at all.

The trump card I always pull out when people start coming up with objection after objection and scare scenario after scare scenario about DROs taking over and being a monopoly is to point out that this is basically what we have now. A monopoly defense agency answerable to no one. That is what the state is. So if they are so against that and scared of it, then they too should become anarchists. At the very least saying we need to have a state to protect us from an outcome that is identical to a state is not a valid argument.

These are all very standard objections, you might want to check out my free book Practical Anarchy... :)

Stefan Molyneux:

These are all very standard objections, you might want to check out my free book Practical Anarchy... :)

 

Thanks yeah I began reading it a little while ago.

useyoureyes:

Oneironaut:

It might help to turn the tables a bit. Below, I have answered each question with a question. Hope it helps.

 

1. How would a DRO that is lying about weapons purchases and hiding weapons from 3rd party inspectors be stopped from taking over violently?

How would the Executive branch of a government, if it is lying about accruing military power for the protection of the populace, be stopped from violently taking over the country?

 

2. Couldn't a DRO just lie about the "10 million dollar deal" just long enough to become organized and powerful enough to take over?

Couldn't politicians just lie about their campaign promises just long enough to gain power and take over? (ahem, Nazi Party)

 

3. What if a DRO grows quite a bit and then a new guy comes in and starts murdering people and tries to start a new state?

What if the legal powers of the government are expanded quite a bit and then a new President or Party comes in and starts imprisoning/murdering people in an attempt to gain a dictatorship?

 

4. How would competing, individual DRO's fight against a large-scale attack such as nuclear/biological weapons or a large scale invasion from a well-armed nation?

How would separate communities, without a standing army or large tax base, fight against a large-scale invasion from the most powerful military in the world? (Hint: American Revolution) Also, voluntaryist societies can have nuclear/biological weapons too. Keep in mind, there are plenty of historical examples of large, advanced militaries proving unable to take over territories defended by small, guerilla forces.

 

5. How many people would actually have fears or care enough to be constantly watching the DRO for any suspicious activity (I'll admit it's a cynical question to begin with, but I didn't have an answer)?

How many people would actually have fears or care enough to be constantly watching their government for any suspicious activity or concentrations of power?

 

6. Wouldn't a DRO be unstoppable if they found just one corrupt bank willing to not seize the DRO's assets?

Wouldn't a state military be unstoppable if they found just one corrupt Congress willing to not withdraw funding?

 

7. Wouldn't DRO's just turn in to large gangs, fighting each other for power? (I said that people wouldn't fund or support them if they did this, but they then noted that by this time they could just start subjugating the people under their respective contracts)

Wouldn't states just turn into large gangs, fighting each other for world-power? If people revolted, couldn't they just start subjugating them under threat of force?

 

 

I think you'll pretty much find that any argument questioning the fragility of the DRO arrangement can be applied just as well, if not better, to statism. I'd rather live in a society that was at risk of coercion (voluntaryism), than one that guarantees it (statism). I understand the concern that a DRO could become a non-"representative," and thus less accountable and more tyrannical state. However, it is false to assume that a certain form of statism (i.e. a republic) is less susceptible to tyranny than a voluntaryist society.

You did not give one answer to any of these questions. A comparsion isn't a sufficient answer to crucial questions - not really an answer at all.

 

You're quite right. My point was to demonstrate that there is no guarantee under any "system" of social organization that tyranny and oppression will not occur. I could have answered each of the questions directly, but they pretty much all have the same answer, which is that the defense of a voluntaryist society is dependent upon the effort exerted by the comprising individuals to maintain it. Nonetheless, below you'll notice that I have addressed each of the questions. I'm curious what your response to these questions might be.

Also, I believe the following links will help quell some concerns about security in a voluntaryist society:

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

Myth of National Defense

The Private Production of Defense

Private Police: A Note

The Return of Leviathan: Can We Prevent It?

 

1. I imagine 3rd party inspectors, in order to garner a good reputation, would have "transparency contracts" with DROs allowing them to perform their own reconnaissance and "hands on" inspection. A 3rd party inspector is in the business of making sure the companies it inspects aren't lying. That's the whole point. Otherwise, why have a 3rd party inspector at all? We could just take the DRO on its word. 

 

2. The point of the "10 million dollar deal," correct me if I'm wrong, is to assure people that the DROs intentions are just by providing incentive for others to investigate their practices. So, it doesn't really matter if they're lying or not if the "10 million dollar deal" draws "lookouts" to alert the public of a DROs potential hostility. Also, keep in mind that competing DROs have a huge incentive to keep tabs on their competitors. It's a selling point for a DRO to advertise, "Hey. Such and such DRO is doing this. Doesn't that make you feel uncomfortable? Come do business with us. Our practices aren't sketchy."

 

3. First off, it's hard to believe that one person would be able to have that much sway, but let's assume one person does accomplish it. Murdering people is expensive. The DRO would be going up against, not only other DROs, but likely an entire armed populace. Unless the DRO is somehow successful in quickly taking over a highly populated area and successfully exacting tribute, the economics of such a situation disfavor the warring DRO.

 

4. DROs are liable to cooperate with each other in defense of a large-scale attack to protect themselves and their market. DROs may possess nuclear weapons too, or perhaps an entrusted committee of some sort, which would serve as a massive deterrent for any nation-state to invade.

 

5. If you were paying an annual/monthly fee to a DRO for insurance, would you do diligence in deciding which DRO to subscribe to? What would that entail? Might you read consumer reports, etc? Even if the typical consumer was not very invested in keeping tabs on DROs... as I said before... competing DROs most certainly would be.

 

6. Why would only one bank be responsible for seizing a DROs assets? Even if that were the case, wouldn't that bank be doing business with other DROs and other businesses in the economy? The bank's livelihood is dependent upon the opinions of its customers and investors, many of which, I imagine, would not take too kindly to the idea that the bank is in a plot to establish a state.

 

7. For this response, I'm just going to direct you to the link I posted earlier on, "The Return of Leviathan: Can We Prevent It?"

 

Oneironaut, to be honest, I do not have an answer the these objections.

I will take my best stab at it when I get back from grocery shopping.

Even though I do not have definitive answers to these objections, it does not mean my point is invalid.

Oneironaut:

 

6. Why would only one bank be responsible for seizing a DROs assets? Even if that were the case, wouldn't that bank be doing business with other DROs and other businesses in the economy? The bank's livelihood is dependent upon the opinions of its customers and investors, many of which, I imagine, would not take too kindly to the idea that the bank is in a plot to establish a state.
 

Well my opponents point was that the bank would be taking a risk at the possiblity of huge financial gain along with power/a monopoly over the newly formed totalitarian government.

masonkiller:

Oneironaut:

 

6. Why would only one bank be responsible for seizing a DROs assets? Even if that were the case, wouldn't that bank be doing business with other DROs and other businesses in the economy? The bank's livelihood is dependent upon the opinions of its customers and investors, many of which, I imagine, would not take too kindly to the idea that the bank is in a plot to establish a state.
 

Well my opponents point was that the bank would be taking a risk at the possiblity of huge financial gain along with power/a monopoly over the newly formed totalitarian government.

 

And it would be a HUGE risk. It would be like a company in any other market trying to gain a monopoly by cutting their prices below cost. Even if you managed to not go bankrupt, the probability of you failing to achieve a monopoly (or a state) is extremely high. The resources at your disposal would have to be overwhelmingly in your favor relative to the territory you wished to occupy in order for it to be a risk worth even considering. Is it possible? Yes. Probable? No.

 

Something that is important to remember when considering whether a single DRO could eventually become a state is that a state can only exist if most people within it's jurisdiction consider it to be legitimate.

Without this prerequisite, it can't really be considered a state, but more of a millitary regeime.

If most people do not consider the DRO to be legitamate then they will be able to see that they are being violently forced to pay rent and are not, in fact, paying any kind of social contribution.

When one looks at the situations that occur when a foreign state tries to impose a type of state onto a country that it's populace doesn't consider legitimate (think Iraq) and the trouble that is had maintaining order, it isn't hard to imagine the non-sustainability of the same situation without the backing of an entire country of tax-payers but only with the resources that can be extracted from the population that you are trying to subjugate.

Oneironaut:

 

4. DROs are liable to cooperate with each other in defense of a large-scale attack to protect themselves and their market. DROs may possess nuclear weapons too, or perhaps an entrusted committee of some sort, which would serve as a massive deterrent for any nation-state to invade.

Even I have a fear on this one. Attacks with small arms are much, much slower than attacks with WMDs. How could DRO's possibly have a system to ensure that use of WMD's on other DRO's or communities would be prevented?

Oneironaut:

6. Why would only one bank be responsible for seizing a DROs assets? Even if that were the case, wouldn't that bank be doing business with other DROs and other businesses in the economy? The bank's livelihood is dependent upon the opinions of its customers and investors, many of which, I imagine, would not take too kindly to the idea that the bank is in a plot to establish a state.

 

Well the whole idea under my opponent's claim was that the bank would do so in secret. Just a couple secret meetings with the top guys at the DRO would close the deal.




This is making me think that, if voluntaryist society somehow came about in my lifetime, I should start a private espionage company. Contracts are signed between me, the banks, the DROs, anybody else who could be involved in a consiracy or plot, and then I pay people inside those business to feed me relevant information that could unveil such a plot. Don't know how that could ever possibly work though.

The question presupposes that governments are able to prevent the use of WMDs. Political posturing and propaganda simply creates the illusion that the State is keeping everyone safe.

When debating DROs, it's important to realize that every service a DRO might provide is already being provided in some capacity in the private sector. There are also economic considerations that would prevent a DRO from growing too large, in addition to the privilege afforded by the mysticism that surrounds the State.

While your comparisions are very good, answering these questions might also be helpful since people might also like to know how DRO's and those living in the anarchist society would overcome these problems.