Theme: Reciprocity

Succinct elegant argument. Only things I would add are first, that the market for incremental suppression of parasitism continuously expands with human innovation. Secondly that the returns on commons are so high that no polity can compete for survival without them. That’s because the market for commons defeats the market for government.

—“I think your argument against the anarchist position can be simplified a little bit–

Government is a business in the market of security. If the “morally” acceptable price of security is artificially capped at zero (as libertarians/anarchists insist), then there will be high demand for security, with little supply. This relationship (like any other market) leads to shortages. A shortage in the market of security means there will be lots of people that want security, but do not get it. The anarcho-capitalist “Moral” argument against government, is essentially the same as the communist “Moral” argument against profit – that is that the business owner does not have a right to seek a profit.

Governments are essentially businesses, and they compete in the market of security, just as farmers compete in the market of corn. The market of security is not as efficient as markets like corn, because security is a ‘winner-take-all’ type of market. You are not making a utopian moral/immoral claim. You are simply making an observational statement of reality.

If the anarchists are serious, they need to think of ways to compete in the market of security (thus lower its cost), instead of arbitrarily declaring profit-seeking in the market of security to be immoral.”—