I think minimal infrastructure should be free. We already have this with open source programs, public education, etc. but I think it should extend to the internet and other things.
What is "minimal" should be determined by some kind of system, and above that, there should be a free market. I believe the role of government is to ensure people's "minimal expectations" are met, and beyond that people can do whatever they want.
And hopefully I will be living by my own principles ... the platform that we've spent years building has been open sourced and put on Github. I think small businesses / apps can be built on top of it, but minimal infrastructure eventually becomes free.
I think you mean minimal infrastructure should be subsidized. There is no free in the physical world. The internet you are using comes in on big copper (or glass) cables and tearing up the ground costs lots of money. Overhead wireless internet is feasible, but not at the scale of an entire city, let alone a nation.
It's not like you can wave your hand and have a network magically appear. People have to dig up the streets, put the cables in the ground and connect things. There are servers in big datacenters and routers and all sorts of technical devices that have to be configured. It is not as simple as pushing a button and making your code open-source; building networks is construction not publishing.
If you think the internet should be subsidized (or nationalized) that's a conversation, but asking private companies to give things for free is ludicrous (you either mandate it to be free or accept the private status quo). If you really want free wifi, lobby for it.
Is the Internet a business or not? Is telecom a business or not? The highways are nationalized, and I'd argue that they work pretty darn well. It's very politically difficult to go from a privatized industry to a nationalized one, particularly in America (it has only historically happened during times of war or massive banking crises and even then quite rarely).
The fundamental question is this: Are these networks public or private? If they're public, most of these questions are non-issues. If they're private, again, most of these questions are non-issues. The reason we're talking about this stuff is because the line between public and private is hard to define.
Yes, I meant free in the sense that a certain basic level would be free OF CHARGE to everyone physically using it. Free basic level of food, water, education, medical care, internet, police, etc. There are good economic reasons for this.
Subsidized isn't exactly right because it sounds like the customer still has a copay. I mean wealth redistribution, but only to provide the basics for everyone.
One can probably achieve this by a basic income calculated in terms of the "minimal cost of living" in a certain area. If people want more than that, then they can start a company, pay taxes, go work etc. But those taxes would go towards ensuring the minimum.
In short I'm arguing for a very well-defined minarchist position that I can defend.
I believe the role of government is to ensure people's "minimal expectations" are met, and beyond that people can do whatever they want.
Conversely I believe that government should have no role other than acting as (as Bastiat put it) "the collective extension to our individual right to self defense". Let the government enforce property rights, provide rule of law and (maybe) enforce contracts. The world doesn't owe you an education, Internet access, a job, or anything else, and invoking use of force to try to ensure those outcomes is wrong IMO.
The world doesn't owe you property rights either. It takes force and coersion to enforce whatever guarantees and protections you feel you are entitled to under "your" system of property.
And if you claim it does, why can't I claim that the government should also, say, help ensure my right to life through emergency medical care in a hospital? After all it's a really barbaric society by 21st century standards that lets a man die if it means that no other man doesn't have to give up 2% of his fiat currency.
Taxes are the cost of doing business in a jurisdiction. It would be the same if you got rid of states and had some ther kind of organizations. In an ancap utopia, you'd iust pay rents instead of taxes. You'd still pay the mall, and the "city" or its equivalent and stillabide by the rules. If the city land was privately owned and administered by a top-down corporation that wouldnt get rid of force. Corporations would hire security firms and mercenaries just like they donow to "restrict your freedom" in their buildings.
In short there's nothing magical about states or property rights. If you had other organizatonal structures they'd still have to enFORCE their policies / laws and still have a management team / government. Corporations, co-ops, neighborhoods etc all have these things. They all have to be run somehow and enforce the policies.
And finally, once we gotoff the gold standard we got an elasti fiat currency that could ecpand with the increase in goods and services produced. That means less deflation and less hoarding (how often did you spend your bitcoins when they were going up in value?) And on top of this we have M2 money issued by banks, and then we have consumer credit etc. This means that good ideas such as by entrepreneurs like yourself can get funded. Then we also have limited liability and bankruptcy protections which helps startups form (less of that in Europe).
Finally the govt can just print fiat money to pay for this which doesnt "force" anyone.
Never said it did. I don't think the world owes anybody anything. The question is, when is using force / violence justified. My position is that initiation of force / aggression are not justified, but force can be used in self-defense.
It takes force and coersion to enforce whatever guarantees and protections you feel you are entitled to under "your" system of property.
Defensive force though. I'm against using force to compel people to participate in a system, or do things, against their will.
And if you claim it does, why can't I claim that the government should also, say, help ensure my right to life through emergency medical care in a hospital?
IF your structure (whether you call it "government" or something else) can accomplish that end without using initiation of force, there is no reason at all why they shouldn't do that. BUT, and here's the problem... in practice, "government" as we know it is pretty much always predicated on using violence to achieve its ends. Taxes are collected at the end of a gun barrel, and people aren't given an option to "opt out" in any realistic sense.
After all it's a really barbaric society by 21st century standards that lets a man die if it means that no other man doesn't have to give up 2% of his fiat currency.
Sure, no argument against that. But I'd argue it's an equally barbaric society - or more so - where we institutionalize the initiation of violence to achieve our ends, no matter how noble they sound.
In short there's nothing magical about states or property rights. If you had other organizatonal structures they'd still have to enFORCE their policies / laws and still have a management team / government. Corporations, co-ops, neighborhoods etc all have these things. They all have to be run somehow and enforce the policies.
The difference between a State and other structures is that States (in practice) aren't limited to voluntary association, and they claim for themselves the "right" to use force in a non defensive mode. Build a State that is strictly limited to acting as the collective extension to our individual right to self-defense, and I'd probably be onboard.
Finally the govt can just print fiat money to pay for this which doesnt "force" anyone.
Except, by and large, we've seen States refuse to allow anybody else to compete with their currency. If you try, they send men with guns to come and round you up and take you to jail. It will be interesting to see what happens with Bitcoin in this regard, since it is so decentralized.
I think you and I agree in a lot of the sentiments you expressed, but I am saying that there a lot of caveats to the assumptions behind thosd sentiments.
First of all if you got rid of states and cities and didnt have those centralized police forces there would still be "men with guns". They'd just be hired by some security firms that would work with various organizations but they'd still enforce whatever policies the organizations had.
Secondly in an ancap utopia you'd have rents instead of taxes which are also the cost of doing business - except instead of public jurisdictions you'd have private property. An immigrant to such a community would immediately find himself on someone's land and have to pay rent and abide by whatever possibly non-standard rules the landlord had.
Thirdly if money is the only signal, is the market is really "free" of any political mechanism then you could eg buy up justice, lakes whatever and then abuse its original intent. For example a millionaire could come in, buy off some judges and then proceed to rob people recouping their investment.
Fourth, taxes arent usually collected st the point of a gun. For example an employee's taxes are withheld by the employer with no guns involved. Taxes are the cost of doing business in a jurisdiction.
Fifth, states and cities do compete for resources, eg some towns in Arkansas will PAY YOU to move there and build house and give you $50k to start a business because they are losing people and they want to invest that way. They aren't immune from consequences and can't hike up their taxes to unlimited levels or pass absolutely any kind of local ordinances. Same with countries etc.
I think your main objection stems from the fact that land give rise to a natural monopoly. You can't have 100 roads going through one intersection and you don't want 100 militias operating on the same turf. If you look at the internet you'll also see large ecosystems - facebook google apple etc. which are in effect "states" in cyberspace. Their policies (eg google real names policy, facebook's privacy etc.) cause friction because they are so big and in some ways your membership with them is a contract of adhesion. But that's a situation that's similar to the states one.
You say violence is the main factor but I say that force is employed either way to enforce systems work. And usually that force doesnt lead to physical violence. But even if you ran things differently there would still be violence.
What is "minimal" should be determined by some kind of system, and above that, there should be a free market. I believe the role of government is to ensure people's "minimal expectations" are met, and beyond that people can do whatever they want.
And hopefully I will be living by my own principles ... the platform that we've spent years building has been open sourced and put on Github. I think small businesses / apps can be built on top of it, but minimal infrastructure eventually becomes free.