When discussing whether or not government law enforcement should be abandoned, writes Edward Stringham, we need not look into a crystal ball to view how private judicial systems will operate. We already have existing examples that provide answers today. They operate on both local and global levels and while presently the state prevents a completely private system from operating, the presence of market arrangements shows that private police and courts are possible. FULL ARTICLE
{ 139 comments }
← Previous Comments
How can you be prosecuted when there is no law? Remember, the violator opted out of the system *you* picked. He’s perfectly within the boundaries of *his* system’s laws.
It doesn’t matter if a thief believes that he is justified. People can and will defend their property in a libertarian society, with the help of specialized police and defense forces.
Think about the natural limits of this: if everyone is defending their own person and property, and then someone decides that they are entitled to more, he will meet with the resistance of. . .everybody.
Contrast that to today’s system, where the squeaky wheel gets the grease and no one’s person and property are safe.
if everyone is defending their own person and property, and then someone decides that they are entitled to more, he will meet with the resistance of. . .everybody.
I don’t see how this could happen. If there is a dispute about property, it’s one person’s word against another’s. Which side would you jump in on? The accused theif, or the person who is calling someone else a thief. In our system, they are under the same set of laws and the same set of courts. Even if there are extradition treaties, each is still under a specific governmental system (although, there are countries that don’t have extradition treaties with us, and the victem would just be out of luck). Anarchism would increase the probability that each would fall under separate systems, and the probability that an extradition treaty would not be in place. Except with countries that don’t have agreements with each other, at least there is usually some distance between them so the victem and suspect won’t necessarily close enough to hurt each other. But in a system where neighbors don’t live under the same laws, violent conflict would arise more often to resolve disputes.
‘Common law’ had this kind of authority.Even with common law both parties would have to be in the same jurisdiction, or else one would have to extradite one of the parties to the other’s system… which is common under our system, but may not be so under a flavor of the month anarchist system. I mean, you would have picked your system for a reason, why would you voluntarily extradite yourself to the other’s jurisdiction?
Nelson,
I do not see how you’ve reached the conclusion that interdependent jurisdictions would not cooperate with each other.
I do not see how you’ve reached the conclusion that interdependent jurisdictions would not cooperate with each other.
Because some (many?) people wouldn’t pick the most “just” system. They would pick the system that benefits themselves the most. Or they may be independant of any system and just decide to fend for themselves, which they would have the right to do, under the anarchist system.
Nelson you said,
“Because some (many?) people wouldn’t pick the most “just” system. They would pick the system that benefits themselves the most. Or they may be independant of any system and just decide to fend for themselves, which they would have the right to do, under the anarchist system.”
This proves nothing. It is a bunch of assertions, with at least two true statements: People would pick the system that would benefit themselves the most (obviously) or they may fend for themselves (also obvious, but for economic reasons, unlikely). However, these two facts prove nothing about whether or not competing defense agencies would coorperate. You are simply assuming they wouldn’t and are hoping that no one will notice you are making empty assertions without backing them up.
In short, please provide analysis based on economics and the nature of man, like Sasha and the others do.
P.S: It must be noted that there is some historical evidence that the ancaps are right. For example: Medieval Free Cities, Law Merchant, Admiral Law, Ancient/Medieval Ireland, Medieval Iceland, and the “Not so Wild Old West.” Statists and minarchists try to say these examples are nonsense or contrived, but it must be noted that a persons underlying idealogy influences how they read, write, and interpret history. However, what matters in the end are facts, and in the end, based on my research, the facts are on the side of the ancaps. In fact ancap theory, despite its insightfulness and sound economics, was not enough to convince me. It was the historical date backing up the theory which persuaded me to their side. “Religion” indeed.
Regards,
Dave
Oops, I meant “data” not “date”.
People would pick the system that would benefit themselves the most (obviously) or they may fend for themselves (also obvious, but for economic reasons, unlikely). However, these two facts prove nothing about whether or not competing defense agencies would coorperate.
If one wanted to do harm or just did not trust other legal systems for whatever reason, choosing a legal system that would be likely to extradite them would not be in their own interest. Therefore they would pick a system that would not extradite them.
Nelson, you are amusing. You would forbid others from leaving your system, using the excuse that you do not believe that their system would work. Instead, you would inflict harm on others for your own profit, and at the same time say that others shall not, under penalty of death, form their own system. This due to unsubstantiated fear that you (or someone you care about) might be harmed for others’ profit.
Yes, your bald hypocrisy is quite amusing.
Nelson, you are amusing. You would forbid others from leaving your system, using the excuse that you do not believe that their system would work. Instead, you would inflict harm on others for your own profit, and at the same time say that others shall not, under penalty of death, form their own system. This due to unsubstantiated fear that you (or someone you care about) might be harmed for others’ profit.
I didn’t say I would inflict harm on others for my own profit… although I suppose I already do through externalaties such as the small ammount of air polution comming from my automobile.
I would inflict harm on others for trying to form their own system without consent of the state. If you can negotiate forming your own system with the current state (such as the Native Americans have done)… which btw, would come with so many strings attached that you really wouldn’t feel free of our legal system… or more realistically leave here and form a system somewhere else outside of our borders, that is your prerogative.
Neson said:
How is this good news? If one guy is a politician, or wealthy, or a member of a privileged class — he can have full force of law on his side, while the other guy is without any protection.
And what would be wrong with anarchy? Both sides would have their own protectors (just like they have their lawyers) — and the chances are that the issue will be resolved more efficiently and justly, since two jurisdictions (for statists, imagine analogy between the U.S.A. and Canada) are not going to war over some theft. Actually, since both parties care about law enforcement (that’s where their profit comes from — unlike our current state that will not go out of business), you would see mutual interest in justice based on private property rights.
As far as extradition concerns goes, a system that would decide to isolate itself from extradition, would actually suffer from other jurisdiction in all ways (like self-imposed trade sanctions). If that fact alone would not drive them out of business – than it would be the absence of extraditions from other competing systems (attacks on them would not be sanctioned).
Anyway…. competing businesses, motivated by profit, would provide superior protection against any gang.
Yet again, anyone who says this:
“I would inflict harm on others for trying to form their own system without consent of the state”
I mean, why do I even try to have an intelligent dialogue with a person who would initiate the force against someone who just wants to be live without association with such brilliant minds and people like Nelson… It’s pointless.
“I would inflict harm on others for trying to form their own system without consent of the state”
It’s just the way it is. I don’t like treason. But I would not try to harm you if you left to go somewhere else to form your system.
Treason? As in “betraying the trust” of Don Corleone? Don’t make me laugh. As if gangsters, whose existence is based on theft and violence, ever trust anyone (look at their laws). Well, you can be proud of the fact that America was founded by people who did not betray their families — but they did betrayed gang who tried to rule them unjustly.
In order to (try to) exercise my freedom of contract (freedom of association), I have to become a refugee. As if the state owns my property and I’m just a tenant there? See what statism does to a human mind… Go back to your feudalism allusion now and see how absurd that sounds.
And what’s the ultimate justification — you don’t like someone leaving your gang. Once a Crip always a Crip — huh?
Nelson, you accused anarcho-capitalists of being religious toward their ideology (a complete nonsense, since we base our arguments completely on applications of undeniable self-ownership and property rights) — but look at your state-theism…
Your justification of the state is coming from a religious fanaticism. He basically justifies state – by its own existence (divine creature)… We’re all its tenants and if we rebel for whatever reason — we will be brutally killed by the divine punishment — which is completely just. Unlike breaking any other contract, like quitting your job, looking for an alternative security provider is an act of “treason” that should also be punished (by death, according to state’s divine laws, right?). And to ensure obedience, they are brainwashing our children to worship this mafia “contractor.”
As a part of that public school theology of statism, they actually instituted so-called pledge of allegiance. It is a remnant of a pagan worship, sort of idolatry toward a piece of cloth. And any child who refuses to participate in this occultism gets punished.
But I guess Nelson wasn’t thinking about that when he said something about “religious” ideology. He wasn’t thinking at all…
I still don’t think Nelson understands that if a car thief suddenly decides that he’s not under your law, he’s still going to be punished.
He’s confusing anarchy with “no rules”, or (worse) “pick your own rules whenever you want them.”
If Nelson was remotely interested in the subject, he would have by now checked out the links provided several times in this thread, and he would quickly see that when libertarians talk about “anarchy” they in no way mean an absence of rules, punishment, rights, etc.
( http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp )
As it is, I think that he’s only around to try and prick our libertarian bubble. The trouble is, he doesn’t realize that every critique that he’s offered simply shows that he hasn’t read Rothbard, Hoppe, etc. How is the debate supposed to proceed when he insists that anarchists can’t defend their property against criminals that have “opted out” of private property?
When people actually read Rothbard (or Hoppe) and then offer critiques or questions, the conversation is infinitely more fruitful.
I accidentally happened upon an article by Roderick Long, here at mises.org, which has a paragraph that states the distinction I’m trying to make better than I have been saying it:
“Since Locke’s day, libertarians have been divided into two camps. Some, like Rothbard, have embraced Lockean equality as an absolute standard to which any legal system should be held. Others, following Locke himself, have regarded pure Lockean equality as an unworkable constraint on a legal system, and so have favored surrendering just enough Lockean equality to make practicable the legal protection of the Lockean equality that remains.
“My own sympathies lie with the first group; in my view, Locke’s arguments for the incompatibility of Lockean equality with a functioning legal order all commit either the fallacy of composition or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. (For example, from the claim everybody should submit his disputes to a third-party judge, Locke fallaciously infers there should be a third-party judge to whom everyone submits his disputes, which is like moving from everyone likes at least one TV show to there’s at least one TV show that everyone likes.)”
In my view, Nelson is submitting a similar proposition when he says that a government monopoly is needed with courts and protection.
As if the state owns my property and I’m just a tenant there?
Technically, it does belong to the state. If you think that isn’t the case, try not paying your property taxes. According to Anarchism, all of this land really belongs to Native Americans. We took it from them by force, disease and deception. We benefited from this aggression. The natural law of property is the powerful own it. What makes a democracy great is it allows the people to come together to make a government that is powerful enough to own/protect the land and rules to govern that land effectively and for the most part peacefully and justly (with the obvious exception that it was stolen in the first place). Sure corruption exists, but there are many parts of government to check up on each other to make sure that the amount of corruption can be controlled. Take note of our last congressional elections where the people threw the Republicans out of power.
If you have a moral unjust feeling about it, leave. Otherwise live within the rules we have set up and try to change them from the inside, rather than trying to abandon them all together.
In my view, Nelson is submitting a similar proposition when he says that a government monopoly is needed with courts and protection.
This is indeed the view I have.
Yet another set of your incorrect statements (a euphemism).
The fact that the state is racketeering me — does not mean it claims any property title. Actually, it recognizes my property title and it claims it is protecting it! So it is directly contradicting you. The only reason I pay property taxes is the fact that I’m getting robbed at a gun-point, and the government is calling this an “implied contract.” You did not prove any justification for such an arrangement.
When it comes Native Americans, regardless of how horrible and criminally Europeans treated them, as Rothbard pointed out, their land claim was ambiguous and not based on homesteading. You can’t be a nomad and then claim ownership rights over the entire continent that your ancestors dwelled on. That’s not how property rights can be demonstrated. You were completely misinformed again about the positions you aim to criticize.
Nelson,
Come come now. I have no rightful claim to your property just because I threaten your life. Think about what you’re saying. Similarly, if a thief carjacks you, then he can claim rightful ownership because you pay him. Is that your view?
Incorrect. Though it would be difficult, they could claim ownership of certain land, but not all in use now. Also, you are assuming that there was no instance of peaceful trade, which is false.
I cannot speak for what you have done, but I never stole any land. I would do my best to set things right, but the statists are a towering impediment at this point.
What percentage of people share this point of view? I don’t want to waste my energy on the wrong generation.
That reminds me of an episode of South Park where all the rednecks told the “unpatriotic” war protesters that if the protesters didn’t want to support the war they could “geet out!”
Reminds me of another episode where one of the boys doesn’t see the benefit of voting when he’s forced to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. It was hilarious.
Kevin,
I’m glad Nelson came out of ideological closet and recognized that he does not believe in individual ownership rights. Now he claims that we’re just using “state’s” property (as if there is a live homesteader under that name) — God giveth, God taketh away.
Nelson just demonstrated how socialism is logical conclusion of any statism (even the one that proclaims “libertarianism”). This thread is precious.
I’m glad Nelson came out of ideological closet and recognized that he does not believe in individual ownership rights.
Where to the laws of nature meet with the laws of man? In government. I’m not saying what is the ideal, or even what I wish. I am saying what is realistic. Try starting your own government and/or other legal system which you do not wish to call a government. If you can defend yourself and your land from all forces, only then can you set up a meaningful system of individual ownership rights. A system of individual ownership rights can not exist independent of a common system to delineate and protect those rights. A government in which everyone follows the same basic rules and supports the common defense is an effective way of securing all of our other rights.
It also is an effective way of resolving internal disputes peacefully. When two parties come into conflict, and negotiations fail, the most powerful party usually prevails either through submission of the weaker party or through the results of combat. When there is doubt about who the powerful party is, fighting is more likely. So, in order to resolve disputes peacefully, we have developed a neutral 3rd party (courts) which follow our common rules (laws) to resolve those disputes. This 3rd party is by necessity stronger than each of the individual parties to ensure the losing party is not strong enough to meaningfully reject the ruling. The only way to make this 3rd party stronger than all the other parties and to subject all subjects to the same set of laws, is to institutionalize a governmental system under which no one can opt out. Ideally this government would be democratically elected by the people and a system of laws set up in such a way as to maximize other freedoms while still denying the opportunity to opt out.
I’m glad Nelson came out of ideological closet and recognized that he does not believe in individual ownership rights.
I believe all individuals within a system should be subordinate to the same set of rules. No person should be above the Law. And the laws should not be different for different people. This is why the Anarchist system is immoral. It would set up different rules for different people and the rights of those able to hire the strongest security forces would always prevail over those who could not.
Another set of dishonest statements from Nelson… He wrote so much, yet he could not erase his pervious statement:
- Nelson believes that everything around us is the property of the state, that we live and feed ourselves because the state permits us to survive.
Don’t back away from that crucial point. It was a logical derivation of your statist ideas, which proves that you are a socialist (who contradicts the claim of the U.S.A. that people own their property and that people created this “more perfect union”)… Their children should be able to exit their implied contract if they decide no longer to have any association with the state.
Did anyone say that? Anarcho-capitalists believe in freedom of association (America was founded on right of secession from the “protection” it did not want to accept)… But we don’t believe that competing legal systems should be geographical monopolies forced on people. People should choose their own protection — and that would not only be their safeguard against oppression (to avoid having the system in which they could find themselves in the mercy of one single monopolist, who may not like their skin color, religion, ideology).
It is distasteful when someone who uses misinterpretations in every message — and who clearly stated that he supports the theft and racketeering — to now pass nonsensical judgments regarding the morality of anarchism.
Nelson, let me show you again how absurd and illogical your statements are. You said that laws should not be different for different people! So what does that mean? That you support World Government? That U.S.A. should accept Chinese rule, since they have a relative majority?
Legal jurisdictions are different for different people. But in order to be under a protection and a jurisdiction of your preference, you should not be forced to leave your property. You certainly agree with this: since Americans did not they exercise their right of self-determination in the 18th century by moving to France. After all — from your self-ownership we derive our right to establish contracts and voluntary associations.
So it is clear that your position is self-contradictory. As far as morality goes, anarcho-capitalism is a strict derivation of self-ownership. Even if you were not an immoral person who advocates aggression against inalienable human rights — your effort to prove that self-ownership is immoral would be a futile one. Dr. Hoppe explained the logical impossibility of such attempt:
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf
Regards.
If it makes you feel any better, just pretend that the US is the result of people coming together to form a rule of laws. One of those was the inability to opt out without leaving the territory. Anyway, you have said nothing that proves that your system is set up for the people in general as opposed to the strong and the rich. If you can buy defense, you can buy offense. If you control the courts, the law and the security forces, your neighbors are not safe. Anarchism is a utopia that will never exist. Just accept that so you can do something useful rather than just complaining.
Another mental exercise you can do to show the absurdity of your system is pretend you ARE living in an Anarchist system. You are under one set of rules. All of your neighbors along with the rest of the country have picked the system we have now. The first time you come into contact with a law you don’t like we’ll see who wins the dispute.
You said that laws should not be different for different people! So what does that mean? That you support World Government? That U.S.A. should accept Chinese rule, since they have a relative majority?
Ok, I’ll grant you that our system isn’t perfectly logical. But at least for the most part it works and it’s compatible with the laws of nature. Unlike your system, which does not work and does not take into account the laws of nature.
Nelson,
You said:
“Ok, I’ll grant you that our system isn’t perfectly logical. But at least for the most part it works and it’s compatible with the laws of nature. Unlike your system, which does not work and does not take into account the laws of nature.”
1.) You have not demonstrated that “your” system is compatible with the laws of nature. In fact, to arrive at your system, one must deny the laws of nature- as Rothbard, Hoppe, and even Rand, who was a minarchist, have demonstrated.
2.) You have not demonstrated that ancap/private law would not work. Any attempt to do so would require aan in depth economic, and histrical analysis. You have provided neither.
3.) Taking into account the laws of nature (i.e the nature of man) is exactly how Rothbard, Hoppe and other natural rights ancaps arrived (arrive) at their system. To deny this, it must be shown that they where (are) incorrect about mans nature, or have misinterpreted the implications. It must be noted that you have not even attempted to do this.
Regarding this statement:
“Another mental exercise you can do to show the absurdity of your system is pretend you ARE living in an Anarchist system. You are under one set of rules. All of your neighbors along with the rest of the country have picked the system we have now. The first time you come into contact with a law you don’t like we’ll see who wins the dispute.”
How does this show the absurdity of anarchy? Are you saying that “might makes right?” What if the law that this soverieng individual is protesting is truly unjust? The “absurdity” that you just pointed out applies to any system, whether it is anachist, minarchist, socialist ect.
I can turn this mental constuct around:
Say YOU ARE in a minarchist system. You are under one set of rules. All of your neighbors along with the rest of the country have picked the sytem we have now. The first time you come into contact with a law you don’t like we’ll see who wins the dispute.
Clearly, this argument proves way too much; thus it proves nothing.
Regards,
Dave
I see some spelling/grammatical errors in my post. Thats what happens at 2 in the morning…
Are you saying that “might makes right?”
It would be more accurate to say that “might makes” and leave the “right” out of it. Anarchists still refuse to admit that force wins disputes and isn’t always on the “good” side. But it is more likely to be on the good side if it is based on majority rule rather than buy your own protection.
Nelson,
No reasonable anarchist-at least of the ancap variety- denies that force wins disputes. The problem is, the state has a monopoly on force, which means that right or wrong, it can force its will on a hapless citizenery (or individual who IS in the right) and there is no recourse.
Part of what anarchists want to accomplish is to to take away the monopoly on force by making it competitive so that those that have been wronged have at least some recourse. To see this read Rothbard, Hoppe ect.
As for your comment: “But it is more likely to be on the good side if it is based on majority rule rather than buy your own protection.”
You are assuming that most people are decent and not willing to aggress against others. However, in all your arguments against anarchism you have had to assume-or so it seems- that people are genreally indecent and want to always aggress againt others. You cannot have it both ways, my friend.
In fact your addmission that most people (the majority) are on the good side can be used to demonstrate what would happen to rogue protection agencies under ancap.
Under ancap, a majority of people, simply wanting to make a living and not being criminal minded, would not seek rogue protection agencies. Moreover, in the event of one coming into existance, the other protection agencies- in the name of survival- would boycott and bring sanctions against this agency, because the overwhelming consumer demand would be for agencies that are honest and merely protect their clients against agression. (For a much better elaboration, read Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty”.)
Perhaps one could respond that this is putting too much faith on human nature. However, any system depends upon the character of its people. If the overall character of a people is indpendent and nonagressive, more decentralized systems come into existance (such as minarchy, ancap, ect. On the other hand, if the overall character of a people is dependent, grasping, and entitled, socialsim, communism, fasicsm, ect are that people form of governance.
In addition, if people where as depraved as those who argue against ancap must portray them as, because otherwise their argements fail, minarchy could never work either. The two options in the long run would be warring and impoverished tribalism, or a bloody dictatorship much like Saddam’s Iraq.
In sum, ancaps do not put too much faith on human nature, becasue it can be emperically observed that a vast majority live peacefully with their neighbor. The state cannot be creditied with this because the state cannot change the morality of its subjects, it can only work within the boudaries that its subjects either passively or actively allow it to. If people truly wanted to rape, pillage, murder and otherwise agress against their neighbors, there is nothing, short of a bloody dictatorship, that a state could do to stop them. Morever, it must be noted that it is the state that does most of the pillaging, murdering and aggressing, against both its own subjects, and the subjects of other states.
So are we safer with a state that has a monopoly on force; that has the power to tax (steal from its subjects) and print money, so that its ruling elite does not have to directly bear the costs its actions, unlike a private security agency? Emperically, this is hard to determine, but based on the few histical examples of stateless or nearly stateless societies, Such as Medieval Iceland, Ancient/Medieval Ireland, and the not “Not so Wild Old Wet” the answer seems to be “NO!”
Ha, Ha..I meant “The Not so Wild old WEST” not “WET” …
And your best example is Germany in 1933.
Nelson, you just admitted that you don’t recognize private property and that we’re all just tenants on state’s land. So you don’t even recognize the U.S. constitution, comrade. After all, it was America who broke away from its “implied contract” with United Kingdom, which is completely contrary to your state-theism. We have unalienable property rights and that we the people should be able to form a more perfect union even today — because of our self-ownership and freedom of voluntary association.
And you still were not able to explain your contradiction:
If you think that all people should be under one jurisdiction, regardless of their language, cultural and political differences: do you support one world government? If you think that all people should be under one law, based on majority rule – are you willing to accept Chinese rule and Mandarin language one day?
Anarchism is not a utopia. Countries today live in the state of anarchy in respect to each other. The problem is that these countries maintain their jurisdictions based on violence and mafia-style monopolizations – which majority of states paradoxically find illegal! If something is illegal for common people – why would it be allowed for ruling class (politicians) who operate mafia-style monopoly?
In other words, you do support different rules for different people: one set of rules for politicians and other for their subjects. Instead of having different rules based on people’s choices (which they can’t forcefully impose on other people), you are advocating quasi-feudal order in which the force determines who belongs to which law. You are proving Bastiat’s point that socialism is the reaction of former supporters of feudalism.
If we support self-determination rights that formed American independence – we also support such rights for minorities within it: starting with the smallest minority: an individual. What’s so utopian about that? Secession that is not based on territorial monopolization actually has more chance of success, because it does not imply violence and forced rule over anyone within its jurisdiction. In order to avoid violence, a relative majority of statists need to understand that they would benefit from competition in market for security — just like they benefit from competition in any other segment of their lives — and then state would not try to violently prevent anyone from finding a different provider. It was difficult for the state to deregulate and privatize many different markets, but it had to be done. As Hispanic population increases so rapidly within the U.S.A., it is possible that Anglo-Saxons will realize that they will not have to have any conflicts over the official language and ethnic problems of any kind — if they are smart enough to embrace direct democracy (anarcho-capitalism). That day maybe closer than Nelson realizes.
PS
Actually, the Serbian proposal for the future status of Kosovo resembles anarchistic model that’s based on sovereignty of people, rather then territory. Basically, Kosovo’s Albanians should have an absolute self-rule, and not even have any relations with Serbia if they choose to do so — BUT they cannot take Kosovo’s Serbs along with them and subject them to their fascist rule.
Serbs, non-Albanians, Catholic Albanians, as well as any other citizen of Kosovo, should be allowed to keep their union with Serbia and to freely form their own governing institutions. And majority of Albanians and those who support them should practice national-socialism if they choose to do so – just as long as they don’t force it on someone else. Why is it so difficult to accept?
Sasha,
That was a pretty good post. However, I am curious about one thing: do you or do you not agree that the political system a people lives under/by is determined, at least to some extent, by the that peoples overall culture and morality?
I ask because both theory and emperical observation seems to support this. Anyway, if you do’t mind, I am curious about your take on this issue.
Regards,
Dave
Dave,
I absolutely agree with you! That’s why it is dangerous to have a system in which far less than 50% of voters (backed by small number of rich people) choose who runs the aggressive monopoly and force their values on the rest of us. That’s how Bush got his power, as well as that Austrian guy with mustaches in 1933.
A minority of people who want to steal and live at the expense of others — exists today and it will exist under any system of government. But profit-motivated firms, competing for customers with their efficiency, will do much better job in fighting these, as opposed to a careless monopoly. It seems that Nelson forget that vast majority of people today wants their security providers to fight crime, out of their own self-interest (to insure their future profits and presentation of wealth). If tomorrow we get a complete anarchy, all these people would not go crazy all of the sudden and start embracing street gangs. Also, all these wonderful people who vote for socialists would not stop helping their fellow men, once they get their tax-free paychecks and freedom to look for private charities and protection agencies.
In anarcho-capitalism, there is a place for all of us. That’s why I used extreme examples in my anarchy: saying that communist should have an absolute sovereignty in their communes, Muslims with their Sharia law and their own protections from aggressors… But I also stated that organizations that embrace individual freedom and peaceful cooperation will probably be very successful in any region (they would have more prosperity, better trade and information exchanges with others, superior extradition rules, ultimately offering better protection for its customers) — but let people decide in direct market elections (like we do with the insurance or any other industry).
At any rate, people who have an absolute self-determination and freedom (whether it’s in France, Northern Ireland, Basque/Spain, Nigeria, Kosovo, or Philippines) will not have many of the current reasons to resort to violence (they are ruled by the majority against their will and forced to pledge their allegiance to someone they don’t like and don’t want to hire for protection).
Again, anarchism does not presuppose lawlessness… We see international law arising from competing jurisdictions that are in state of anarchy in respect to each other. There are conflicts, but there is no absolute world-rule (regardless of neoconservative dreams), as long as people are different and willing to invest their resources in protection of these differences. Anarchism simply aims to consistently apply human (self-ownership) rights in order to have heterogeneous, competing legal systems (like we have today in the world), but with flexible boundaries, not based on local monopolization, but rather on people’s voluntary market choices — and that’s a pure, direct democracy.
Dave,
I completely agree. Furthermore, I believe that fact is one of the main obstacles to further decentralization in the U.S. Not only are most people ignorant of economics, but I am under the impression that a subtle sadism permeates the culture. If that is the case, then removing economic ignorance would not necessitate the country’s leap to liberty, as many hope it would. For these reasons, I have little faith in Nelson’s generation; however, I am a long-term optimist.
Geez. I must be a glutton for punishment but anyway, I can’t help but intervene for poor ol’ Nelson. After all I agree with the Grand Unifying Pessimism of Liberals which is to say that the world is governed by power. Or, in other words, the ones with the biggest sticks get to make the rules for others.
Nonetheless, what of other questions such as:
1. Governments are monopolies of law enforcement? Doesn’t the good ol’ U.S.A. let the 50 states make their own rules about laws and their enforcement? Doesn’t this allow for 50 competitors for U.S. to choose for the better law enforcer?
2. Why take offence at the love it or leave argument? Are yous presuming the U.S.A. is the Great Light of Civilisation and outside lies the Dark Lands of Choas and Evils? I thought there were many nations to choose from including developed nations with less tax and regulations. Why not look at different brochures to see which nation have lovely standards of living combined with low restrictions on capitalistic behavoiur? I hear that in Dubai, Saudi Arabia there are no income taxes at all! How many people in times past and today left their sinkhole of a nation to migrate to the U.S.A. for freedom and opportunity? Is there proof that there IS competition amongst governments to provide incentive to maintain their most productive citizens? Or if they are short-sighted enough not to cater then why not go to a nation that rewards any productive person willing to resettle? Why do yous (the U.S. Libertarians) keep complaining about what a Evil, Statist, Craphole the U.S.A. is and yet keep living there copping it? Are ALL the other nations even worse when to comes the Evil of Statism or what?
Sure, the U.S. “lets” 50 state governments operate. That’s the way the system was set up when they wrote the Constitution. But ever increasingly over time, the federal government has tried to limit the state’s power and bring them more in line with federal, centralized rule. For example, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. And the 22nd (I think?) that changed the election of Senators to popular vote instead of letting state legislators choose them. And consider Prohibition, abortion law, federal “matching funds” and other federal programs that try to encourage or force the states to comply with D.C.’s wishes. In short, it’s an ongoing power struggle that points to the instability of the system and its tendency towards a greater concentration of power and tyranny.
This also points to the answer to your second question. No the U.S. isn’t nearly as tyrannical or oppressive as many (most?) other governments, but again, it’s a problem with the system that, without great effort and awareness on the part of its citizens, will continue to concentrate power and become more tyrannical over time. I would suggest that this would be a problem with any minarchist system, and not merely the current system that the U.S. has, because the fundamental nature of a government is to grant some people power over other people, even if it’s for the “greater good” of society. People being what they are, power tends to corrupt even the best of intentions of its wielder.
As I’ve said before I believe large populations would naturally tend toward dictatorships. In the case of the U.S.A. you’re only going to get to choose between a representative democracy or a dictatorship. And a handful are hardly going to represent all of the different viewpoints of the groups within the 300 million. I think we would agree that a Direct Democracy would only work in small populations. And I think the ‘anarchist’ viewpoint likewise breaks up society into a great many small self-support units too.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.