Right, let's have a shot at this.
Fine in theory. But can't be done in practice. And so is no more than a theoretical exercise.
In economics there is a lot of literature on the Free Rider Problem. Essentially a lot of people can claim that they don't consent to certain things the government does, and so then they can claim that they don't have to pay for it. But the problem with Public Goods is that you cannot separate who gets a benefit from them from just those who agree to pay for them. So your 2 choices are that everyone pays, and everyone benefits, or no one pays, and no one benefits. To try to have only some pay and only that some benefit just can't be done. But many people try. Those are the free riders.
The system fails if everyone does not pay for the public goods. Everyone is worse off in the long run.
Should most of the population simply resign itself to being poorer now and in perpetuity simply because a minority wants to opt out? How dare they do that to us?
Here's your irony: The alternative to the "tyranny of the majority" is a tyranny of a minority.
That's certainly a problem with an attempt to opt of responsibilities without simultaneously giving up the relevant benefits, but what bearing does that have on actual secession? If we take the term to mean a genuine non-participation in state-society, rather than some rhetorically overwrought form of tax avoidance, then it seems that this wouldn't be a problem, because responsibilities would be given up along benefits. (Or, at least, not direct benefits; obviously, there may be certain spill-over benefits of one kind or another. But you could equally say that Canada or Mexico benefit from the military budget of the United States, and yet I've never hear you propose that the US start demanding imperial tribute from its neighbours.)
OK, I see your point. But the flaw in the reasoning is that amadeus' view (as you describe it, he can chime in if he feels you haven't accurately described his position) is not an objective view of the world.
There is a set of theories called "Public Choice". Essentially it says that everything government does is to serve special interests against the public, so the government should do nothing and the public will be better off. But is that true? There's no question that many special interests work to try and make it true. And that at different times and places it has more or less success. The irony with this, of course, is that the politicians who say that the government should do the least are the most likely to be the same politicians that do the most to make the government serve special interests at the expense of the public interests. So Public Choice becomes a self fulfilling prophecy because it becomes a tool used to give special interests what it wants.
Because, you know, the biggest thing that special interests want is to have a government that does nothing. This is why conservatives and libertarians are constantly talking about deregulation: To remove any constraints on the actions of special interests.
And that is because when all is said and done most of what the government does, at least in the developed nations, is not at the expense of the public, but rather at the expense of those who want to enrich themselves at the expense of the public.
So to the extent that ama would want the same policies as the Koch brothers for a different intended outcome, he's wrong. He will get not the outcome he wants, but the one the Koch brothers want. The fact that he doesn't know going in that he is working for his worst enemies only shows that his enemies have a more rational grasp of the world than he does.
The bolded would be my main point of contention: I don't think that this is accurate. Even if we set aside the issues of the military-industrial complex, internal conflicts within big business (manufacturing vs FIRE, etc.), state union-busting, and so on, and assume for purposes of argument that "special interests", collectively, stand arm-in-arm behind an ultra-Gladstonian
laissez faire, that does not in any sense imply that they want a state that "does nothing". They might want a state with limited economic powers, but, as I said, when it comes to the defence of private property, in particular but above all
as such, they have not the barest hint of the smell of the shadow of the reflection of a qualm with the state wielding violence as sternly and as eagerly as any tinpot despot. And that represents a very fundamental departure from the anarchism espoused by Amadeus. Private property as it exists in a state society is quite fundamentally predicated on violence, the threat and therefore the use of violence, and that is something that he makes it quite explicit that he has absolutely no truck with.
Do I think that his politics actually offer an escape from a society of domination and violence? I can't say that I think it particularly likely, which I'm fairly sure will come as a surprise to nobody. But I can at least recognise that his criticisms, taken to their logical conclusion, are as incompatible with the politics of the Kochs and their ilk as mine are.
Nor would they be in any alternative situation. This hypothetical world in which no one is "coerced" is something where I can't even imagine the theoretical situation, it is so utterly and completely impossible.
So you are essentially saying "In a world that cannot exist, X would happen. And because X is such a wonderful thing, we should live in a world that cannot exist". To which my reply is
Not at all: I make no positive proposals of any sort. All I'm arguing is that the liberal state is an inherently coercive project, and so the logic of the free and voluntary contract does not function as a legitimisation. If one holds voluntary contracts to be the basis of a free society, then one
must be an anarchist. Perhaps you don't- it certainly seems that you take a more utilitarian line- but it does mean that you're not able to refute the anarcho-capitalist project using their own logic of free contracts, at the very least as it applies to individuals who reject the state.
They will as soon as someone decides to march an army through their communal peasant society. Essentially you can hope to get away with that only to the extent that no one tries to take it away from you.
All you're really saying here is that protection rackets can be quite effective, which I don't think that anyone would disagree with. (There's a reason why the peasant societies that have most effectively resisted the state are generally in awkward places, like the South-East Asian highlanders, or able to punch above their weight, like the early Cossacks.) It doesn't really constitute an argument for the state
as such, or at least no more than it constitutes an argument for feudal barons, which I don't imagine you'd make even in the context of such a society.
And even if there are historical examples of that happening, why should I believe that they might be possible now?
...
Fair enough. But I don't believe in that world. And I cannot see any sense in which it may come about in the foreseeable future. And I certainly wouldn't want to try to live in it in the absence of seeing a successful trial run for a few decades first.
Theory tells me that it cannot be done. So does the real world.
Well, that's a discussion in itself. As I said, I'm not arguing for any particular program, simply defending anti-statism, in the broadest sense, as a coherent body of criticism.
For that matter the American Revolution did that as well. Just in a more traditional manner than Gandhi. We petitioned the parliament, we petitioned the governors, we petitioned the king, we petitioned the courts. These were the avenues open to us. Were they really the correct one? They didn't work in any case. And so we started civil disobedience. The British decided to make a war of it. Not us.
But, again, I have to ask: do you think that the Americans were morally obliged to work within that framework
for its own sake, or merely as a pragmatic measure? Is unilateral political secession wrong because "thou shalt not", or simply because it tends to lead to more violent outcomes?
More important, consumers of haircuts will just start cutting their own hair or decide that 60s manes are all the rage again, putting the cartel out of business. The same is true for any demand-elastic industry.
