Before sober minds can consider the difficult matter of anarchism, we first need to clear away the confusion. We can’t debate various ideas if we don’t even know what we’re saying. To illustrate the problem, I will give three examples from mainstream journal articles that discuss “anarcho-capitalism” (or “free market anarchism”), the anti-political system of complete laissez-faire advocated by Murray Rothbard and many others in the Austrian school. [Full Article]
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/3410/what-are-you-calling-anarchy/
What Are You Calling Anarchy?
Previous post: Rothbard merchandise
Next post: Collegiate Network Cites Hoppe Case
{ 48 comments }
Has Murphy really cleared away the confusion? It seems to me all he has done is define what anarcho-capitalism is not. The question remains: What is it?
Is it a “society” of individuals who are each convinced of the “beauty and justice” of Rothbard’s argument in the ETHICS OF LIBERTY?
Granted, in such a society of angels there would be no need for a “legitimate authority over all members.” So what?
We live in the real world. Men are not all angels.
Murphy’s task is to define anarcho-capitalism as it might exist in the real world? Murphy should refrain from defining anarcho-capitalism by example and analogy. He should simply state what are the distinguishing characteristics and essential social institutions of an anarcho-capitalist “society?”
He should simply explain exactly how and by what specific social structure and/or enforcement system an anarcho-capitalist “society” MUST settle disputes between or among individual members who are not like-minded on the exact meaning of murder and theft?
“He should simply explain exactly how and by what specific social structure and/or enforcement system an anarcho-capitalist “society” MUST settle disputes between or among individual members who are not like-minded on the exact meaning of murder and theft?”
I think your use of “MUST” flies in the face of the concept of anarcho-capitalism.
Pete,
“I think your use of “MUST” flies in the face of the concept of anarcho-capitalism.”
Unfortunately the concept of a “definition” requires the word “must.” If the concept of anarcho-capitalism has no distinguishing social structure and/or enforcement structure, then the concept of anarcho-capitalism is undefinable. The concept can mean whatever its proponents want it to mean.
Ray
“We live in the real world. Men are not all angels.”
I view this point as one of the strongest arguments FOR anarchy. Since men are not angels, why allow any of them a monopoly on force?
Perhaps he should also explain exactly how the free market MUST make transportation available to all members of society, too. Sure, we can explain how it could happen, but by its very nature, nobody can say exactly how it will occur. It is precisely this flexibility for the variety of changing circumstances that humans can find themselves in that is a virtue of any free society, free market, or anarcho-capitalist system, as opposed to the inflexibility and intolerance of coercive, authoritarian systems.
In any case, I don’t think he intended this short article to be exhaustive or definitive–it merely clarified a certain type of misunderstanding and argument against anarchy. He could write more short articles of a similar nature and string them together, or he could simply write a longer piece that incorporates this article as part of it.
Why haven’t even one private defense agency has arisen to protect those believing in an anarcho-capitalist system? You can’t “blame” the existing governments for not allowing private defense agencies as they are known to use force unjustly to maintain their monopoly. The real test of the system is not when there is no opposition to it or in absense of injustice. People have gained independence and freedom from tyrannical governments all the time. But invariably the result was not a anarcho-capitalist system but another government. For example, when India gained independence from British Raj, why it got split into multiple monopolistic governments instead of multiple private defense agencies?
Private defense agencies are perfectly capable of giving protection to its members. But invariably, there will be free-riders. Those non-members who receive benefit because of the law and order maintained by private defense agencies will not be under any obligation to pay the agency. Otherwise, the agency will be nothing but a monopolistic government. I think this situation prevents private defense agencies from arising. Or even if they arise, they degenerate into monopolistic governments.
Apart from non-members who intentionally refuse to pay for the benefits, free-riders can also arise if one private defense agency is so powerful as to automatically defend from external agression the members of the other private agencies in the same geographic area. In that case, its members will have to pay more fee to cover the expenses of developing and maintaining the extra power. Other private agencies can avoid doing the necessary investment for defense of their members and thus can afford to charge less. In that case, if the private agency refuses to force non-members (including members of other agencies) to pay for the defense then it will see a steady decline in its paying membership and ultimately bankrupt itself. If it forces non-members to pay for the defense from external agression then it becomes the government.
Well exactly!
Not so fast! None of these agencies protect against injustice of the government. Try not paying your taxes and see if any one of these agencies protect you from IRS agents!
Or if you believe that a court judgement was unjust is there any agency that will protect you against that injustice even if they believe you are right?
“Not so fast! None of these agencies protect against injustice of the government.”
Revolutions involving tiny minorities tend not to be all that successful. No one is preventing a company from researching time machines, but the unlikely hood of their success makes it a poor business plan. Even if all the heroic Mises Institute Blog readers put all their money together and got out their rifles I don’t see them doing anything but getting killed.
I doubt you will find Mises Institute members investing in time travel either. I am not saying it is impossible, I am just saying anarcho-capitalists are underfunded and outnumbered.
So, let’s look at the hypothetical scenario where 50% of the people believe and support monopolistic government while the rest 50% believe in anarchism. Both groups are equally powerful (money, weapons etc.). Since, former group is ready to forcibly collect taxes while the latter is wiling to tolerate free-riders, what do you think will happen? Will the latter group be able to marshall the resources necessary to prevent agression by the former group? Will it be able to resist tax collection attempts by the govt.? How will the latter group finance itself (as a group or security agency)? Each individual of the anarchist group knows too well that they cannot resist the govt. individually. Even if a coherent group emerges out of the anarchists, there will be free-riders. Let’s say the anarchists group has been formed and can now resist the tax collection by the Govt. Now, since Govt. agents do not dare to enter the enclaves formed by the anarchists what if few of anarchists declare themselves out of the group and refuse to pay the contributions or fees to the group? Do you think after a while the anarchist group be able to hold itself without using force against free-riders? The imbalance in the power caused by free-riders will allow the Govt. to re-establish its monopoly over the whole territory.
Thus inorder for anachism to work each private security group has to be more powerful compared to all the governments and other tyrants in the world.
Worse, if the Govt. is tyrannical beyond its forceful collection of taxes (such as prosecuting religious belief), and if the latter group is composed of people who are for religious freedom but are okay to use force against free-riders, then that group will be able to secure its freedom from the Govt. But if the latter group is composed only of anarchists then even that will not happen. Mostly likely the anarchists will have to tolerate taxes and as well as undergo religious persecution! That’s why all the revolutions against tyrannical governments has not produced anarchism but resulted in different governments (mostly less tyrannical)!
http://ashishniti.blogspot.com/2005/04/anarcho-capitalism-is-not-sustainable.html
“Thus inorder for anachism to work each private security group has to be more powerful compared to all the governments and other tyrants in the world.”
Thus inorder to avoid one world government each state has to be more powerful compatred to all other governments and other tyrants in the world.
Let me offer some general responses…This article was not intended to be a definitive treatise. I was just pointing out that a lot of people look at government screw-ups and say, “That’s anarchy for ya!”
If you check out my website http://homepages.nyu.edu/~rpm213/Main.html I have tons of articles on anarcho-capitalism (see the Private Law series at anti-state.com). I also have a 60-page booklet on this. I also have a novel, “Minerva,” depicting the founding and evolution of an an-cap society at http://www.strike-the-root.com/minerva.html.
I prefer to define anarchy as “without rule by force”. In other words, people within a given society are free to establish leaders and freely associate with whomever they choose. However, anyone can opt out as well. In other words, no one may have a ruler (or laws) forced upon them.
In reality, people already live 99% of their day-to-day lives under such a system. Even you job is anarchic because, unless you’re a slave, you are free to leave at any time to find another.
People don’t think they live in anarchy because they equate anarchy with chaos. In actuality, anarchy is simply free association.
Ashish,
Your argument is made less convincing by the fact that two Stateless societies (as far as we can tell), Ancient Iceland and Ancient Ireland, existed for 300 and 1000 years, respectively. Ancient Ireland withstood numerous attempts by the British to conquer it.
Sincerely,
David J. Heinrich
TCA, agreed. Anarchy, being without imposed rule.
I certainly do not consider my membership in the SCA to be submitting to the “Rule of the King of Atlantia”, nor going to church to be submitting to the “Rule of the priest”, because I can always stop volunteering. The King of Atlantia has no power to impose his rule on me.
Governments, by definition, have that power. They can initiate force, they can impose themselves on unwilling …ah… taxpayers.
Why is GWB not being tried for murder of Iraqi civilians? Because he’s in government. Government can initiate any force, up to and including genocide, and the people who ordered it can sleep safely at night.
Even if I didn’t think that anarchy (really pure political Liberty) would work better than what we get with governments, I would still support it because it couldn’t be any worse!
Your comment about GWB is interesting! Kurdish people were against Saddam and wanted protection. So they engage US of A as a security agency. Now, this security agency is tired of running overflights over Iraq just to protect Kurds (and also other Gulf countries like Kuwait and others). So, it decides to get rid of the threat permanently and therefore attacks Saddam Hussein and removes him!
Now, remind me again, why should we try GWB for genocide?
“Perhaps he should also explain exactly how the free market MUST make transportation available to all members of society, too. Sure, we can explain how it could happen, but by its very nature, nobody can say exactly how it will occur.”
I do not expect Murphy to speculate HOW anarcho-capitalism might come to be. I expect him to define in specific terms what anarcho-capitalism IS so I will be able to recognize it once it comes to be.
Murphy refers to anarcho-capitalism as “the anti-political system of complete laissez-faire.” Doesn’t a “crowd” or a “mob” meet his definition? Indeed, how does Murphy distinguish between a “mob” on the one hand and an anarcho-capitalist society on the other?
By Murphy’s definition the exact state of affairs with regard to the earth’s general population now qualifies as anarcho-capitalism.
There is no worldwide political system. Individuals are not subject to the interference or coercion of some monolithic, authoritarian worldwide government.
The world writ large is a collection of independent states and territories to which various citizens pledge allegiance, voluntarily or unvoluntarily. Surely this worldwide non-political system is anarchy. The question is what social mechanism MUST exist in order for this anarchic worldwide non-political “system” to become an anarcho-capitalist worldwide non-political system.
Many anarcho-capitalists blithely speak of private defense agencies and their part in an anarcho-capitalist “system” Are these private defense agencies the ESSENTIAL social mechanism of an anarcho-capitalist non-political “system?”
If so, what feature of the anarcho-capitalist non-political system will prevent these private defense agencies from eventually and inevitably devolving into the very same type of authoritarian states we experience now in the world?
Because anarcho-capitalists abhor the monopoly of force held by governments (and anarcho-capitalists tend to assume that all governments are coercive and evil), they assume a “free market” in force would result in a preferable state of affairs.
Would it?
As one who is skeptical of such anarcho-capitalist assumptions, I think it is fair to ask how exactly does one go about creating and holding together a “system” or a “society” among anarcho-capitalists, each of whom is politically sovereign? How does one go about creating and maintaining a “free” market in force and coercion?
Shouldn’t anarcho-capitalists be able to cogently answer these questions before crashing the wrecking ball into every form of government as we know it?
I do not expect Murphy to speculate HOW anarcho-capitalism might come to be. I expect him to define in specific terms what anarcho-capitalism IS so I will be able to recognize it once it comes to be.
Ray, it’s very simple. Anarcho-capitalism is free association. It’s life without coercion. It’s Free Will in the Christian sense that you have a right to live your life as you see fit. It’s also the Golden Rule in that you should give everyone else the same freedom. Is it utopian? Yes. Will we ever live in such a world. No. Should we strive to come as close to it as possible? Obviously. We’re really talking about philosophical principles for living your life.
Ask nearly anyone if he is a good person and he will probably say yes. The problem is that most people are unwilling to give others the benefit of a doubt that they will behave themselves without a governing authority in place. You probably feel that you don’t need the police in place to tell you what’s right or wrong. Why can’t you extend that same benefit to the general population?
The society we live in does not exist because we have politicians, policemen, and laws; it exists because we will it to exist. There aren’t enough policemen or guns in existance to prevent an overthrow of the government if a sizable population revolts against it. Most people simply aren’t interested in robbing or murdering their neighbors. Unfortunately, most governments are.
Ray,
Let me end the suspense…I am an advocate of a “free society,” which I define as one in which the property rights of everyone are respected. I think this is impossible to achieve in practice, but that a system of free market anarchy will come closest to it.
“Anarchy” for me means absence of coercive gov’t; monarchy=rule by one, oligarchy=rule by a few, anarchy=rule by no one.
“Free market” is harder to define. In normal usage of course it means a market without gov’t interference, but in this context that would be redundant. Nonetheless we need to qualify “anarchism” with something, because we can imagine all sorts of oppressive societies that do not have a government.
If we had widespread agreement and respect for many types of property, then a free market anarchist society would mean a society in which even legal decisions and law enforcement (if the latter exists; everyone could be a pacifist) are conducted by agencies that do not violate the property rights of their clients.
But if you want a list of necessary and sufficient conditions, I can’t give them to you, since I don’t think a free market anarchist society is something like a rectangle. Part of its necessity is that we need to discover what the correct laws will be.
“The world writ large is a collection of independent states and territories to which various citizens pledge allegiance, voluntarily or unvoluntarily.”
Could someone please point me to one of these “voluntary” states?
So Ashish I am to guess you support the use of force on innocent people? As Stephen Kinsella lucidly wrote:
“Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to “but anarchy won’t work” or “we need the (things provided by the) state.” But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will “work” (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or “can” be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.
Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.
Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)
As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression – the initiation of force against innocent victims – is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?”
re: anarchy being “without rule by force,” if i kill someone and i do not belong to any protection agency with a contractual agreement with the agency of the victim, isn’t that agency ruling me by force if they take me into custody?
furthermore, what about the market for rules and laws that initiate agression? there are certainly people that would be willing to pay to have gays shot in the street, or atheists burned at the stake for example. there are much more lighter examples as well.
Ray,
“Shouldn’t anarcho-capitalists be able to cogently answer these questions before crashing the wrecking ball into every form of government as we know it?”
If there was a button that would destroy every State in existence, the anarcho-capitalist would push it (or at least, I would). However, there is no such thing, so even according to the optimistic anarcho-capitalists, world-Statism would not end all at once.
Most likely, various pockets of anarcho-capitalism would emerge, slowly growing as people realized how successful they were.
If some island became anarcho-capitalistic — hence the most free geographical region on Earth — and they reduced crime-levels significantly and became very wealthy, would you then admit there was proof that it works? Or would you say, “that’s only an island, it could never work everywhere!”
Arman,
No I don’t support use of physical force against innocent people. But I do not like the fact that some people will hide behind my protection without paying for it!
Maybe there are better ways to make them pay. For example, an anarchist security company can declare that they will not come to the rescue if non-members living in the same geographical area are attacked by others or if they fight among themselves!
Kind of US declaring that they will not protect Canada if Canada is attacked!
RPM,
Thanks for the clarification. However, I think you’ve not gone far enough. Your stated goal is to “clear away the confusion” swirling about the term anarchism so “sober minds can consider” it. How does a “sober mind” wrap itself around the following:
1. If anarchism means “the absence of coercive government,” how can you think of anarchism existing in terms of having “correct laws?” A meaningful “law” implies enforcement which implies coercion. By what specific social mechanisms could a “free market anarchist society” prevent its law enforcement agency from becoming de facto government?
2. A “free market” is only redundant in the context of anarchism if all anarchists are angels. We can agree that all potential anarchists are not angels, so the question remains: By what social mechanism could an anarchist society ensure that its market in forceful coercion remain unhampered by the very force wielders that are actively participating in it?
My contention is that if we are to seriously discuss anarcho-capitalism, free market anarchy and the like in praxeological terms, then we must be precise and clear away the confusion completely by strictly defining our terms. Else we will be reasoning in circles.
In this sense, praxeology is like mathematics and a free market anarchist society IS like a rectangle.
Can you imagine doing meaningful geometry if a rectangle is defined as something that is not a circle but that “part of its necessity is that we need to discover what the correct laws will be” regarding its number of sides?
Ray
TCA,
“You probably feel that you don’t need the police in place to tell you what’s right or wrong. Why can’t you extend that same benefit to the general population?”
Because I witness members of the general population murdering, raping and stealing from their fellow citizens. Most show no remorse for their actions and only refrain from such actions when prevented by coercive force or the threat of it.
“The society we live in does not exist because we have politicians, policemen, and laws; it exists because we will it to exist.”
And, speaking specifically of this country, our ancestors willed it to exist with government and its trappings, not without it.
Surely “society” and cooperation require some type of specific and prerequisite human behavior in order to exist. Will power alone, without these required prerequisite human behaviors, cannot produce a viable, cooperative society. I am of the opinion that enforcement of property rights by means of coercion is one of these necessary criteria.
We know government can provide this enforcement of property rights, albeit imperfectly. Can anarchy provide this enforcement of property rights? How exactly will it accomplish this?
Ray
David,
“If some island became anarcho-capitalistic — hence the most free geographical region on Earth — and they reduced crime-levels significantly and became very wealthy, would you then admit there was proof that it works? Or would you say, “that’s only an island, it could never work everywhere!”
I would take pains to live there. The problem is such an island doesn’t exist and never has existed. One would think if such a nirvana on earth were possible, some group of enterprising human beings would have already created one.
Ray
“The problem is such an island doesn’t exist and never has existed. One would think if such a nirvana on earth were possible, some group of enterprising human beings would have already created one.”
Such could be said of every human acheivement, no?
Pete,
“Such could be said of every human acheivement, no?”
Correct, but this observation implies nothing about whether or not a particular human achievement is possible.
Since anarcho-capitalism seems very simple to implement according to most of its proponents, what in your opinion prevents any particular anarchist from implementing it? Tropical islands are for sale almost every day of the week. Other remote and not-so-remote property is readily available. Surely some Asian or African monarch or potentate could be persuaded to part with some land and a promise of non-interference for the right price. The potential reward, both financial and social, would seem enormous.
Ray
Ray,
Such socieites have existed, specifically Ancient Ireland and Ancient Iceland. They are clearly quite possible.
Sincerely,
David Heinrich
Do you have any tropical islands in mind? I have done quite a bit of window shopping for islands and I don’t recall them being very affordable. Such an enterprise would be quite risky. Surely the potential reward is high, but the chances of success are low at this point. If you know of a tropical island for sale under the flag of an impotent government…
I am quite certain people have thought this out, but it is a risky venture. There is no doubt that a very rich person could do this no problem, but none has decided they would like to.
Ray,
Many of your objections are things that an-caps encounter all the time; I have tried to answer several of them in my anti-state Private Law articles. (It doesn’t mean I’m right–the fact that I’ve replied to these concerns before–but it does mean I don’t feel obligated to type them out again on this blog.)
And you and I simply disagree about the similarity of geometry and law. In contrast to even many Rothbardians, I do not think an a priori deductive approach to a complete legal system works. I think “the law” will evolve over time. This doesn’t mean _morality_ changes, but morality and law are not the same thing.
RPM,
There is, however, a morality of what should be law (that is, a morality of natural law): what are we entitled to use coercive force to prevent. However, what is actually enforced is something that is evolving (or devolving).
Pete,
“Do you have any tropical islands in mind?”
None specifically. I just recall seeing various ads over the years in publications like the Wall Street Journal. Yes, such property is quite expensive but well within the range of some private sector entrepreneur. In fact, The Walt Disney Corp. owns a tropical island which they reserve for the exclusive use of their cruise line passengers. How they acquired it and from whom and what governmental strings are attached to it I do not know.
Ray
David Heinrich,
“Such socieites have existed, specifically Ancient Ireland and Ancient Iceland. They are clearly quite possible.”
Well, maybe not “clearly.” I’ve read about these societies and I am not persuaded that they were in fact embodiments of libertarian anarcho-capitalist theory.
However, if I concede your point for the sake of argument, I am not impressed. Why exactly did these ancient anarcho-capitalist societies fail to endure? Some fatal flaw, perhaps?
Ray
Let’s not forget the old west as another example of a libertarian society.
I don’t see your point Ray. It seems you are arguing that it is impossible, because it is possible and no one has done it.
Anyone with enough money can create ancapistan, it seems the problem is that there is not enough ancaps with both the desire and the money.
Ray,
Regarding embodying libertarian theory, if you read Rothbard’s For a New Liberty, you will see that he bases his idea for how ancap justice would work after the pattern of Ancient Ireland. From available knowledge, both Ancient Iceland and Ireland constitute stateless socieites (Ancient Iceland was effectively stateless, too).
Ancient Ireland’s 1000 years counts as “failed to endure”? No society has lasted forever. Ancient Iceland lasted 300 years, approximately as long as the US so-far. We should be hesitant to criticize the lack of endurance of societies that have lasted longer than our own (the US arguably wasn’t the same society after the Civil War).
Ancient Ireland withstood numerous attempts by the militarily superior British to conquer them. This was b/c whenver the British negotiated a treaty, everyone except for the few who signed it viewed it as invalid. I think fending off invasion for 400 years and existing as the same system for 1000 constitutes endurance:
Furthermore, even if such a system wouldn’t or didn’t last long, that’s still not a reason to avoid it. At least the world, or some part of it, would have a holliday from Statism.
Arman,
True, from 1830 to 1900, law-enforcement in the West was private, effectively no (or very little) State. See Hill, P.J. Anderson, Terry. American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West.
RPM,
I don’t expect you to feel obligated. Over the years I’ve read much anarcho-capitalist theory and I am persuaded by none of it. I’ll give yours a shot, but won’t promise to hold my breath.
The crux of my objection to anarcho-capitalist theory is faulty assumptions, dubious epistemology and unspecific language, which is why I was attracted to your article in the first place. As I’ve stated above, I honestly don’t think your article cleared away any significant confusion.
Another example: “In contrast to even many Rothbardians, I do not think an a priori deductive approach to a complete legal system works. I think ‘the law’ will evolve over time.”
You assume that anarcho-capitalists can propograte “law” and a “legal system” in a society wherein each individual is politically sovereign. How can that be?
And how exactly does law “evolve?” How can you know that over time law will inexorably evolve into something which is “correct” rather than something which is incorrect from the point of view of anarcho-capitalism?
If an “a priori deductive approach” will not provide answers to these questions, what approach will? Trial and error? Maybe that approach is what did in ancient Iceland and Ireland.
Ray
Ancient Iceland and Ireland lasted for quite a long while, Ray…
Perhaps you could tell us of what you have found to be truthful. So long as it’s not democracy gushing, I’m sure that at least some Miseans will like to hear it.
Also, if you have not been pursuaded by an-cap theory before, why have you bothered to come in here and talk about it? Are you hoping to be pursuaded, or are you hoping to prove people such as RPM to be incorrect?
My Friends if I may be so inclined to add my thoughts on the subject as a 17 year old Anarcho-Capitalist (yes I have done my reading and I’m on my 7th book Socialism on page 365).
Ray, to answer your question “You assume that anarcho-capitalists can propograte “law” and a “legal system” in a society wherein each individual is politically sovereign. How can that be?”
It is in fact quite easy for me at least to answer at least for me I’ll try to be brief.
Law in the Anarcho-Capitalist Society
Law is dominated by Owners of Property of course actions that those owners can make or take would be limited by their insurance companies that they are with, of course each person would be able to go to each insurance company that suits their needs as a person. This is in my view law, the order society produce.
Alas Law is not political. People have had laws long before govnerment. Take for example societal norms, almost act like laws etc.
If I have not convinced you of anything I am sorry for wasting your time I’ve just started about 7 months ago on my journey though my intellectual awakening.
I argue with Communists, Left-Anarchists, Pure Anarchists, and Government peeps in general.
Thank you for reading
Kyle H. Amador Valley High School Plesanton California
Ray,
This has to be my last response–if I don’t grade my exams this weekend my students will stage a coup. First, I wasn’t using this article to propose a definition of anarchy. Moreover, I wasn’t criticizing Sutter et al. because I didn’t like their definitions. Rather, I was illustrating that their discussions were inconsistent with their chosen definitions.
Second, about law evolving: In whatever your ideal world is, back in 1750 would their commercial law have dealt with ownership rights over domain names on the Internet? Would they have had procedures established for the transfer of spectrum? Would real estate law deal with rights concerning whether planes could fly over one’s land?
I understand that Somalia is in a state of anarchy
and has been for some years. It would be interesting to here from someone with first hand
experience …..
mikey, on Somalia, see: Anarchy Works, Says World Bank.
RPM said: “I was just pointing out that a lot of people look at government screw-ups and say, ‘That’s anarchy for ya!’”
Another excellent article by Gene Callahan that makes this point is: We Need the State… Otherwise, Something Bad Might Happen!
Ashish: Since, former group is ready to forcibly collect taxes while the latter is wiling to tolerate free-riders, what do you think will happen? Will the latter group be able to marshall the resources necessary to prevent agression by the former group? Will it be able to resist tax collection attempts by the govt.? How will the latter group finance itself (as a group or security agency)?
All that’s necessary is for a significant number of people to (i) recognise that government is not legitimate, and (ii) be willing to act on that recognition. If people stop paying the taxes the would-be government claims, the government is finished. If only one or two people stop paying, the government will simply attack them in a way calculated to instill fear in other would-be withholders, but if they have enough support — active support (meaning, basically, people are willing to literally shoot tax collectors who show up in their neighborhood, and/or provide support for those who do (hiding them from government police, helping pay for lawyers, etc.)) — and a significant minority would be enough — the idea of government is finished. But as long as people just want to talk about it, or attempt to accomplish anything “within the system” (i.e., by voting), government will always prevail.
TCA: Is it utopian? Yes.
No it isn’t. Not at all.
Pete Canning: There is no doubt that a very rich person could do this no problem, but none has decided they would like to.
Actually, they have. A couple of times. There was a (man-made?) atoll near Tonga that some libertarians tried to colonize in the early 1970′s. The Tongans threw them off and stole their island. (Hint, for anyone who wants to try this in the future: move in plenty of weaponry and ammunition first thing!!)
Ray: However, if I concede your point for the sake of argument, I am not impressed. Why exactly did these ancient anarcho-capitalist societies fail to endure?
Fail to endure? Anarchic-Ireland, I’m told, lasted 1000 years. That’s far longer than any government in history (with the possible exception of the Roman Empire, if you count Byzantium as the continuation of a single line of government). Seems to me, it’s government that has historically suffered the “failure to endure”!
Ashish,
Freeriders would piss me off. Wouldn’t they piss you off? I wouldn’t want someone skating on the fruits of my labor which was in turn making it harder on me. Would you?
I would not buy property or a house in an area that did not have some kind of contractual agreement that all members would pay their share for certain things. One of the main ones would be security/protection. Who it was paid to could be decided locally or by councils or whatnot (and should probably change to follow the market). And if someone did manage to get themselves situated in the community and then started to try and freeride, I can tell you his/her life would become difficult. So difficult in fact, I’m sure he/she would either leave or find it more to their benefit to restart paying their agreed upon share.
Other such systems/methods would coalesce to counter freeriders because simply, who likes them?
People will always be tempted to do whatever they can get away with. It’s up to the rest of the society to decide where the line will be drawn. I think the laissez faire free market does a marvelous job at that.
Comments on this entry are closed.