Cases:

  • No system
    • Society provides the means to carry intellectual progress forward, the means to build massive projects, and the means to overcome massive threats.
  • Anarcho Capitalism (AnCap)
    • As a matter of nature, dominance arises. In commerce, this takes the form of the emergence of cartels and monopolies. As Adam Smith presented, this is a major flaw of the free market. “Perfect Competition” does not generally exist, and the variances in success in the market allows for accumulation of wealth. And, with this accumulation of wealth, deployment of predatory pricing along with other strageties can allow the formation of monopolies within a free market. (If you do not understand this, you should avoid the topics of government and society construction, and focus on more practical items such as specific corruption.) The monopolies that arise will seek further power, and eventually turn into governments. Prior to the existence of governments, the accumulation of power leading to monopolies and cartels are what led to the existence of governments. Consequently, a free market with no government system will invariably turn back into a government. So, to avoid futility, before advocating for an anrcho capitalism system, one must determine a systematic way to avoid the emergence of monopolies.
    • Long term offenses, such as slowly polluting the air, will tend to go unpunished, since no one individually is being harmed enough to protest. To punish such long term offenses, enough people would have to organize to investigate and punish. But, this presents the problem that inspections are infringements of property rights. A system might be devised to allow for inspections, but no such ancap system has been designed. Further, the punishment for such an offense is also problematic in an ancap system. How should the offender be punished, to what degree, and who should be rewarded? And, even if all of this were designed in an ancap system, that particular group that did the investigation and dealt the punishment would still be subject to corruption, just like any government. So, to avoid futility, before advocating for an anrcho capitalism system, one must design systems to handle cases like these.
    • Sudden major offenses are not avoided. Nuclear plant inspection, for instance, gives some assurance that the plant will not melt down and cause a major offense.
    • Government can serve as a way to direct massive efforts rapidly. This enables protecton from invasion, response to natural disasters, response to system threats (water supply poisoned). An army without a general is subject to many perils.
      • This situation might be likened to an army consisting of nothing but infantry with no commanders and no coordinated intel. I’ll call this army the headless army. If an opposing army appeared to the flank of the headless army, there are a couple possible reactions. Potentially, those on the side of this headless army able to see the incoming enemy army would do one of a couple things: they would charge the enemy army in what would most likely be a defeated charge because it would not be a concerted one; they would run away; they would try to tell the rest of the army about the impending threat. In the case the intelligence about the enemy army was transmitted, the time of transmission and acceptance would be very costly. How would one react to this intelligence. Would an infantryman on the other side doubt this intelligence and want to see for himself? It would be some time before everyone knew of and was in agreement of the threat, and even at this time there is no decided action. Then, at this time, how many would stay and fight and how many would run away?
      • A potential alternative is to design a system where individuals are patterned to act in concert when necessary, like birds in flight. However, no such system that rapidly responds to threats like invasion has been designed.
      • Preventing some natural disasters requires large programs – like building levies.
    • Large programs like the space program would likely never get off the ground. To fund a space program, large amounts of resources are needed. Ignoring how the space program or the resources given to the space program might be managed in a headless society, there is a problem with the raising of the resources. Say, for instance, the fund for the space program would cost 1% of the society’s total income each year – ignoring the trouble of setting up a monetary system in a headless society. Further, for convenience, let’s say everyone’s income is the same and that the space program will benefit everyone equally. In this scenario, there are a couple of possibilities for collection. You could collect 1% from everybody, 10% from 10%, or 100% from 1%. In all the cases excepting taking 1% from everybody, there will likely be the argument: “why should I pay more than others for what everyone will benefit equally from?”. So, there is the 1% from everyone scenario. However, in this case, you would have to convince everybody of the merits of the space program, then you’d have to go about collecting that 1% from everybody; a feat which surely would be expensive in itself.

Without a head, indecision, impotency, and inaction tend to be the traits of the society. However, with a head, misdirection by a small number of people can be much easier.