Comments (139)

• Jacob Steelman

  In most international transactions contracts or custom provide that disputes are resolved through a neutral private arbitration or mediation service. Why? Neither party trusts leaving the fate of their contract (and in some cases their business) in the hands of some politically appointed or elected judge or judges who are likely to be subject to political pressures or worse - bribes. Whereas public court systems can take months and years to bring a case to a close - the private aribitration or mediation moves along rapidly frequently resulting in disputes being resolved in a matter of weeks. Where the public court system can be a trap for the unwary with technicalities of pleadings and presentation of evidence the private arbitration or mediation forum is concerned more about resolving the issue before the arbitrator or mediator rather than getting hung up on formalities and grandstanding by lawyers. Most all good businessmen and many if not most good lawyers know the public system of dispute resolution is broken and is unlikely to be fixed in our lifetimes if ever. Thus, private dispute resolution will continue to grow and supplant the highly inefficient and often corrupt public dispute resolution system.

  Published: March 16, 2007 8:36 PM

• TGGP

  Thus, private dispute resolution will continue to grow and supplant the highly inefficient and often corrupt public dispute resolution system.

  Want to hazard a date by which the public system will be completely or even mostly supplanted? I say it will never occur.

  Published: March 17, 2007 5:09 PM

• Angelo

  Most law and conflict resolution is private now, TGGP. It's proliferation is halted by people like yourself who seem to imply it's just nature but oppose persuading people towards it since history has seemingly fixed its favor for the state.

  Published: March 17, 2007 6:59 PM

• Jason

  I find the examples of private dispute resolution in current employment highly suspect, and usually restricted to bounded arrangements agreed to in advance. Baseball teams going to Canada?? Obviously, they agree in advance what they will do. And if a problem arises that was not anticipated, they are either at an impasse and problems ensue or they seek a third party arbiter, such as an international baseball association.

  In the student example, what happens when student A robs student B? Or kills him? Are we to suppose that university B will somehow convince A to turn over their student for justice? Or perhaps University B will invade A?? Or perhaps, we already recognize that nothing will be done and that's OK, since people would never purposefully harm each other in this future Utopian society.

  I think defense is one of those areas where Libertarians encounter the boundaries of the ideology and realize impractical realities abound. Stick to economics, civil liberties, etc. where much value can be found.

  Published: March 17, 2007 10:24 PM

• gene berman

  Angelo:

  It is not guys like TGGP (and me) who prevent private alternatives from becoming paramount: you're making the mistake of confusing cause and effect. I can't speak for TGGP in stating my reasons for dismissing such drivel--and that's exactly what it is--so I'll just tell you my own.

  I've got a set of arguments against the possible emergence of a "private law" regime--you could call that my "default" position. It's not based on a love of government nor loyalty to a regime but simply on common sense: all alternatives ultimately fall short of answering the question as to who it is, in any particular jurisdiction, that is going to be able, with impunity, take peoples' stuff (or break it) and, if they object, smack 'em around, toss 'em in a cell, and maybe
  kill 'em.

  The ENTIRE article is nothing but the kind of wind akin to sociological mumbo-jumbo attempting, by sheer volume of verbiage, to distract folks from the fact that the central question (indeed, the ONLY question) has not been addressed but avoided. In that respect, it's virtually a fraud
  on this (and, I'd say, most) reader's time and attention. The question I posed (in the preceding paragraph) is the only one that counts.

  Published: March 18, 2007 7:08 AM

• Angelo

  all alternatives ultimately fall short of answering the question as to who it is, in any particular jurisdiction, that is going to be able, with impunity, take peoples' stuff (or break it) and, if they object, smack 'em around, toss 'em in a cell, and maybe kill 'em.

  Anarchists don't have a problem answering that at all. No one will, since no one has the right to ultimate jurisdiction over anyone else.

  Published: March 18, 2007 8:54 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  Good article. Interesting to suggest that polycentric systems would not be the norm, but that you would effectively have very small monopolies (stores, restaurants, gated communities) working side-by-side. I can certainly see that working to take care of most problems, but, even so, it's not impossible for a person to be a trespasser at the golf course of the private club and still assault somebody, even if he's not supposed to be there. However, this is not an insurmountable problem, just one that we need to not ignore.
  
  
  ...who it is, in any particular jurisdiction, that is going to be able, with impunity, take peoples' stuff (or break it) and, if they object, smack 'em around, toss 'em in a cell, and maybe
  kill 'em.
  
  
  Just as the article pointed out, where people voluntarily choose to abide by the rules of a particular organization or someone else's private property, I think that in society overall a similar approach would be used. The key is to have an appropriate incentive even for criminals to abide by the system, without resorting to violence or the threat of violence (killing someone in self-defense would be an exception, though). Ostracism is the essential technique. It can be especially effective in a high-tech world where world-wide communication exists and private databases can be made readily available, allowing businesses and concerned organizations ways of informing the public of criminals who refuse to abide by judgements against them, and deny these people access to various parts of society, depending upon the severity of the crime.
  
  Call it utopian or polly-annish if you must, but it's merely an extension of the kinds of things that already occur. Such a system wouldn't prevent all crime from occurring, but it would provide strong discouragement against most crime, and would avoid the problems the public legal systems create.
  

  Published: March 18, 2007 12:53 PM

• Keith

  "Anarchists don't have a problem answering that at all. No one will, since no one has the right to ultimate jurisdiction over anyone else."

  But you're assuming that everybody accepts and abides by this premise. What happens when two or three or ten or some larger group bands together and decides they can overpower this premise and sets up their own rules backed up by force? Will a more powerful group be created to suppress the first group, and then another more powerful group to suppress the second? Unless all unanimously accept the orginal premise, you 'll probably end up with a government.

  Since the chances of unanimous acceptance of the original premise for all time is very remote, maybe we should just jump to the end and set up a government that is specific and limited and substantially controlled. Of course even this is not a perfect solution and no gaurantee (e.g., the US).

  Perhaps the idea of people minding their own business is too utopian and something we haven't evolved enough to realize.
  

  Published: March 19, 2007 6:26 AM

• Yumi

  "In the student example, what happens when student A robs student B? Or kills him? Are we to suppose that university B will somehow convince A to turn over their student for justice? Or perhaps University B will invade A?? Or perhaps, we already recognize that nothing will be done and that's OK, since people would never purposefully harm each other in this future Utopian society."

  Presuming that most at University A are peace-loving people, they would agree in advance before admission to the university that a killer will be evicted immediately(i.e. expelled).

  If University A wants to keep its reputation as a safe place and to attract any student or teacher or member of staff, the rule makers would have no interst in keeping a killer or a robber on the campus, let alone protect the person. Therefore there is no need for University B to invade A, for instance. Once on his own, the victim's family/relative can bring an individual case against the killer (and this is beyond the scope of universities).

  Published: March 19, 2007 6:28 AM

• Nick Bradley

  I think a lot of people cannot wrap their mind around private security companies because they envision a for-profit corporation providing the service. In reality, I think, religious and fraternal organizations would provide a bulk of the services.
  

  
  Many Catholics would choose to fall under Canon Law. The Roman Catholic Church can (and would) provide the majority of their parishoners' security needs.

  Published: March 19, 2007 9:11 AM

• billwald

  First, Japan has a very efficient legal system - the loved police state.

  Second, in some commuities the Mafia provided an efficient legal system, so did Saddam.

  Third, the problem isn't people of good will want to be good neighbors, its what happens when they turn out to be nasty drunks.

  Published: March 19, 2007 9:38 AM

• Yumi

  Private security companies that operate for profit are more reliable than public police forces when it comes to protection against robbers or intruders, for instance. Police forces owe duty to the 'public' which is an elusive concept whereas private companies owe duty to individuals, under contract, who have signed up for their services.

  There have been cases where a person has been threatened repeately by a stalker yet the police did not do much as the stalker didn't harm the person yet. Then the stalker murdered the target individual. It was held that the police ignored the 'signs' yet they did not owe duty to the victim, as they are responsible for the security of the "public".

  Published: March 19, 2007 10:20 AM

• Francisco Torres

  But you're assuming that everybody accepts and abides by this premise. What happens when two or three or ten or some larger group bands together and decides they can overpower this premise and sets up their own rules backed up by force?

  The self-preservation principle. You can band together 10 guys or so to prey on the population, but that does not mean the population will automatically accept such condition, especially if they are armed.

  Actually, what you described equals what the government is and does, perfectly: a group of armed thugs (police, military, their masters) who set up their own rules (the "laws" and "regulations") to tax those that submit. How does this objection to a private security force help the case for government?

  Published: March 19, 2007 10:36 AM

• Nelson

  Philosophers, from Hobbes to Rand, believe that for all encounters there must exist one authority to create and enforce laws. They are baffled by what would happen if two parties had a conflict without an overarching judicial system.

  Statements like this make the author look foolish. History and common sense tell us that if two parties have a conflict that they can't resolve abicably, and there exists no judicial system to resolve the dispute lawfully, the stronger party wins either by submission of the weaker party or through force.

  Not all disputes need to be taken to the level of a governmental judicial system, but such a system must exist as a final arbiter to support private conflict resolution systems.

  While most people assume that violence is the only possible way to enforce laws, this is far from the practice used in business.

  This displays a very limited view of business. Kidnapping could be considered a business insofar as you have workers (kidnappers), products (kidnapping victims), customers (those paying to release the victim) and the goal of the operation is to produce profits. In fact, most gangs engage in business activities of some kind and they don't have moral inhibitions against using force to support those businesses.

  Of course, there also exists the issue of criminal law. Who's supposed to invistigate a murder? Who has the authority to arrest people? Who is to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused? Who is going to ensure the accused gets a fair trial? Who's going to imprison those found guilty?

  Published: March 19, 2007 10:50 AM

• Angelo

  Nelson,

  If those reasons are why free markets in law should be dismissed, they are just as much problems for the state, who is run by these beings I like to call fallible humans as well. And they decide it in their own favor so they can get away with killing 600,000 Iraqis and no one has legal recourse against them.

  Published: March 19, 2007 11:00 AM

• gene berman

  Weak, guys--no wonder you're a political fringe not all that differentiable in the minds of the "man on the street" from raving commies--the commonality being a penchant for "systems" that just don't make sense--given the present (and almost uniformly similar over recorded history) realities.

  I also happen to believe that most government interference in individual action is counterproductive, unnecessarily restrictive of liberty, and outrageously expensive (including even to those who don't pay for it directly and exist presently by parasitizing the actually productive). All that being said, I see not even a glimmer of possibility for the emergence or existence of a government-free society. It simply boils down to: there's "no way to get there from here."

  The fundamental problem (that is to say, the reality) is that, even though the libertarian economic model makes sense to many and even serves well those with rather imperfect grasp of such matters (shown by the very fact of the success, growth, and spread of civilization over periods in which very few, if any, understood such matters) competition and conflict are biologically assured in the sexual maturation through which all (especially males) must pass in the process of becoming adult individuals. This is a process in which each seeks the best possible place--as a procreation advantage--in a bewildering array of hierarchal comparisons. "Bad ideas" (socialism, criminality, etc.) actually serve adoptors in what, at the time, seem very positive fashions and such reinforcement (through results) tends to "harden" such ideas in the fully-formed personality. Moreover, the process itself serves adult and newly-forming "leaders" who reap significant personal benefit in perpetuation of those bad ideas and the bloc of moral, financial, and violence-prone
  supporters made available.

  To sum up, the system is about getting laid and that will engender conflict (over who gets to do what, with what, and to whom) whether or not any other conflict whatever exists. The more outre positions will characterize many of those with lesser potential in more mundane competition--it's an old, oft-used, and successful ploy toward distinguishing one to a narrower (less-competed-for) gallery.

  In other words, good ideas gain general primacy on a continuing basis. But bad ideas can never die--they, too serve distinct purposes.

  It's "human nature" you're up against--not ignorance or lack of imagination, per se.
  

  Published: March 19, 2007 11:14 AM

• Nelson

  Angelo,

  Please state more clearly how the points I raised are problems for the state. Unless you can prove that Saddam's system of government was protected under the US Constitution, your Iraqi example is not relevent.

  Published: March 19, 2007 11:39 AM

• Don

  Does anybody really understand what Gene just said? None of it makes sense to me- it seems he was just rambling in an attempt to prove his point, assuming he has one to make.

  What exactly are the "present (and almost uniformly similar over recorded history) realities"? The reality is, societies approaching ancap have existed, such as Iceland, Ireland and the "Not so Wild Old West." If Gene has an argument based on facts that proves this statement wrong, it behooves him to inform the rest of us.

  I was going to respond to the rest of his post, but just looking his rambling makes me tired...

  Published: March 19, 2007 12:04 PM

• Angelo

  Angelo,

  Please state more clearly how the points I raised are problems for the state. Unless you can prove that Saddam's system of government was protected under the US Constitution, your Iraqi example is not relevent.

  I don't know how else to impart to you that human beings-the same kind that live in anarchy and are problematic for you-are the kind of beings that run states.

  Only in states, we have no recourse against them. Their decisions are unilateral, irrevocable, and legally binding. Everyone must be compulsorily unified to them, and we must aid and abet them through submission and taxes.

  If people are as faulty as you say they are, that simply means that anarchy is still preferable to the state, since it gives bad people the least opportunity to do wrong. These questions you posed above all must be answered by someone. In the state, they are obviously answered horribly, as evidenced by the countless millions dead from state wars.

  Published: March 19, 2007 12:12 PM

• Nelson

  If people are as faulty as you say they are, that simply means that anarchy is still preferable to the state, since it gives bad people the least opportunity to do wrong.

  How so? Our criminal justice system isn't perfect, but overall, it's pretty darned good. We have mostly honest police and mostly impartial judges and juries. Please explain to us how having no governmental justice system would be superior to what we have now.

  Published: March 19, 2007 1:35 PM

• Angelo

  Nelson, that is the subject for a book such as The Market for Liberty, Power and Market, Democracy: The God that Failed, Anarchy and Law, The Machinery of Freedom, and many others.

  You just asked for an explanation of how a market for law would work. If that's what you need, it's mere ignorance that's hindering you. I'm certainly not going to take the effort to explain what would entail at least a few dozen pages when I've read some of these works.

  Seriously, I could not explain it to anyone's satisfaction without explaining economics itself and then how it would apply specifically to a market for law.

  Published: March 19, 2007 1:53 PM

• Nelson

  Angelo,

  Just tell me who's in charge under your system. Who will deliver justice in a homicide case for instance. Who will investigate the crime, apprehend the suspect, decide their guilt or innocence and punish the guilty. Surely you don't need 12 pages to answer this.

  Published: March 19, 2007 2:05 PM

• Kevin B.

  Nelson,

  I suppose that since the system is good enough for you then it follows that everyone else must accept lay back and accept it?

  The present system is so far from perfect, that it is daffy to label those who wish to improve upon it as utopians, as if it is a waste of time to even try. I suppose our automobiles are pretty darned good as well, so why bother trying to make them better? Preposterous!

  Published: March 19, 2007 2:15 PM

• adi

  It was always interesting in my studies to find out what kind of things one could proof to be true in mathematics starting from some axiomatic system. But is there in existence things as parallel lines which never cross?

  Same is true for this subject; one could very easily prove that private court system is possible, but then again it might be possible that one cant find examples of these. Manythings are possible in the realm of high theory. It's not always possible to have one-to-one (bijectivity) correspondences with the theoretical objects and things in the "real world".

  Also it's the Anglo-American concept of Natural Law which is somewhat alien to us Europeans since we have been so fully trained in the legal positivism and state worship. My training in legal philosophy has been mostly Austin, Hart and Kelsen so it's difficult to overcome this habit to believe in states necessarity to uphold legal system.

  Published: March 19, 2007 2:32 PM

• Angelo

  Why would I have to supply any unified answer of who would do that, any more than who would provide food on a market? People who were good at it, obviously.

  Published: March 19, 2007 2:35 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Surely you don't need 12 pages to answer this.
  
  Would probably need more than 12 pages. The short answers won't satisfy if you don't know where they're coming from. For the most part, it wouldn't look radically different from what we have now--there would still be judges, investigators, jurors, etc. But it would function differently in that the focus would be on common and customary law, not legislation, restitution as primary, incarceration as secondary, and most important of all, a compelling reason other than coercion for people, criminals and all to participate. It's this last point that's especially difficult for people to understand.
  
  And if anyone's been reading, you'll see that there have been and are examples in the real world, although they are not so extensive as what we're talking about: English/American Common law, Merchant Law, even modern arbitration and mediation services, among others.
  

  Published: March 19, 2007 2:41 PM

• averros

  Nelson --

  
  Our criminal justice system isn't perfect, but overall, it's pretty darned good.

  
  That only goes to show that you didn't have any experience dealing with it.

  Published: March 19, 2007 3:27 PM

• Nelson

  Kevin,

  I suppose that since the system is good enough for you then it follows that everyone else must accept lay back and accept it?

  The present system is so far from perfect, that it is daffy to label those who wish to improve upon it as utopians, as if it is a waste of time to even try.

  I don't have a problem with making our system better. But that is not what is being argued for. What the anarchists are arguing for is a complete replacement. I agree that private justice systems can supplement public ones, especially in the area of contract law. But I would not agree that our entire public justice system can be wholly supplanted by a private system. There are too many holes in an entirely private system and when you start closing those holes you end up with a de facto government anyway.

  Published: March 19, 2007 3:42 PM

• Nelson

  Kevin,

  I suppose that since the system is good enough for you then it follows that everyone else must accept lay back and accept it?

  The present system is so far from perfect, that it is daffy to label those who wish to improve upon it as utopians, as if it is a waste of time to even try.

  I don't have a problem with making our system better. But that is not what is being argued for. What the anarchists are arguing for is a complete replacement. I agree that private justice systems can supplement public ones, especially in the area of contract law. But I would not agree that our entire public justice system can be wholly supplanted by a private system. There are too many holes in an entirely private system and when you start closing those holes you end up with a de facto government anyway.

  Edit: misplaced the close italics

  Published: March 19, 2007 3:45 PM

• Nelson

  Please forgive the above formatting errors.

  Published: March 19, 2007 3:48 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  If statists are so convinced in the superiority of their legal system – why don’t they allow market competition which would show whether they are really superior based on truly democratic market selection? Private laws (codes) and private security already exist (malls, universities, clubs) and function as we speak, so there’s no need to even debate their viability. Instead, let’s focus on justification for the states’ (governments’) business.

  Liberals believe that the government is based on implicit contract between people and government… but if that’s really the case, why would they forcefully prevent anyone from exiting that contract and entering a contract with someone else?

  Cosa Nostra also has an implicit contract with people who are under their protection, but the government (rightfully) steps in and provides protection for those who don’t want to be a part of that arrangement. Why is then a problem if someone no longer wants the U.S. government for its security needs? Why wouldn’t you allow communists to have their own security and codes in their voluntary communes, Muslims to practice their Sharia law, Catholics to have their own laws and supreme Emperor if they choose to do so, etc?

  It is not true that such competition in a market for security would create violence. All of these competing firms would make money if they actually provided security for their customers. If they fail to do that, they will go bankrupt. The fact that the U.S.A. and Canada do not have a unified legal system does not mean that criminals from one legal system can commit crimes against people protected by another system. The U.S.A. and Canada live in a state of anarchy in respect to each other, but this fact did not prevent them from establishing the rules of extradition and cooperation, since there is a mutual need to prevent crime.

  Analogously, the subjects of Sharia law would have an incentive to extradite or punish criminals from their own community when they commit crimes against people under different jurisdictions – in order to have the same rights when some outsider commits a crime against a Muslim. Only with such cooperation these different competitors can actually provide their service and stay in business (for example, if some other competing Sharia law enforcement decides not to prosecute Muslims for crimes against other people – other jurisdictions would respond by not sanctioning revenges and other crimes against Muslims under that code -- which means that Muslims would get an inferior protection then with a cooperating Muslim firms)….

  The problem is in fact that the state is a violent monopoly in market for security, which does not tolerate any competition from less expensive and more efficient providers. That’s why they would violently crush any competitor that would try to take away some of their business (taxpayers). That’s why the states are geographical monopolies, rather than entities that are truly based on contracts with people (like chieftaincies in a medieval Iceland)
  

  Published: March 19, 2007 4:58 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Not to mention that anarcho-capitalism would allow people to choose the law system that fits their own moral code and religious beliefs. Legal codes that allow more personal liberties would attract a great number of people - but they would not be able to impose their codes on people who want to live under a different code. In essence, this is what federalism tried to accomplish (different states can practice different laws and people can choose where to live based on their preference) - but anarcho-capitalism would prevent the oppression of a minority within a particular geographic area and there would be no need for its exodus.

  Published: March 19, 2007 5:17 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson:
  "What the anarchists are arguing for is a complete replacement."

  Nope. Not the "replacement" - since we cannot decide for other people whether they want to continue their life under our current legal system...

  We only want a free market competition of privatized legal systems, since we think that it would be immoral to violently impose the rules of one group of people onto another group of free individuals. For example, anarchists would never dare to forcefully draft Quakers into military and force them to act against their own religious beliefs.

  Regards.

  Published: March 19, 2007 5:41 PM

• Nelson

  It is not true that such competition in a market for security would create violence.

  Gang warfare would be a good counterexample to this statement. Plus none of this theory explains what happens when the Sharia subjects decide to kill the non-Sharia just for being non-Sharia. Under their system, they're not doing anything illegal.

  Published: March 19, 2007 6:21 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson,

  You just said three inaccurate statements in three sentences.

  1. Gangs are not examples of free-market entities, but examples of state-like entities. Anarcho-capitalists are against state just because it is fundamentally similar to violent gangs. Both gangs and states are geographical monopolies that establish their rule on violence, rather than contract. That's why I said that State rightfully protects people who don't want to be under the jurisdiction of Cosa Nostra (or a gang), but the state acts jut like a mafia when it tries to prevent people from exiting their jurisdiction.

  2. When a Sharia subject kills some non-Muslim, that is perfectly analogous to the scenario in which a Canadian kills an American. It is up to competing legal systems to decide the rules of extradition and their cooperation.

  3. Murder is illegal under Sharia law, as well as Christian code. If some Sharia law enforcement agency refuses to prosecute the crimes against non-Muslims, then other law enforcement agencies will not prevent revenge or crimes against the subjects of that particular Muslim agency. Arguably, the other competing (Muslim) agencies would drive them out of business, because they would be more successful in protecting their subjects.

  Published: March 19, 2007 7:05 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Private law enforcement would be far more efficient in protecting individuals from gang violence, because unlike state (monopoly), the private firms can only survive in this market if they attract and protect their customers. The state has no moral rights to fight against gangs, because they are based on the same fundamental principles of statism.

  Published: March 19, 2007 7:25 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Gangs and statism will exist as long as there are individuals who want to live at the expense of others -- but unlike state, private law enforcement would fight against all forms of violence against property rights. States by their very existence presupposes the violence against those rights it supposedly aims to protect.

  Published: March 19, 2007 8:22 PM

• Nelson

  "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." -Jack Handy

  It can been demonstrated that such a private justice system will not work. Here's how. Set up a system of your choice. If it is preferable to the state, and powerful enough to stand up against the state, it will survive. Go ahead. Show me.

  Published: March 20, 2007 12:18 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson,

  After that failed attempt with gang analogy I am glad that your arguments have come down to a view that freedom loving people would never be powerful enough to withstand the attack of parasites who want to use force in order to "sell" its "protection" and "justice" - mob style. Of course that you couldn't deny that market competition would be more efficient than a violent monopoly... and insurance agencies, private security services, and any other business on the face of this planet show us that markets can work without geographic monopolies (even though during the New Deal fascism, people commonly believed that competition is harmful and that it must lead to chaos).

  In order to force the state to change its laws to allow market competition - it must be changed by its own rules (with a democratic majority) or by a complete overthrow. I remember the time when Soviet Union seemed like it's going to last forever and that people on the eastern side of Baltic will never live in a free-market system. Now Estonia is one of the most libertarian places on planet. In this country, there could be a gradual movement from current privatized mediation that currently dominates the market - to a privatized law enforcement... In United States we are from that, but that is not a reason to give up. By patiently educating and convincing people in benefits of freedom and market competition, we could create a critical mass for some changes in a society. People like you will be an amorph mass that will not contribute to any change. People like you never stood against Soviet cordons and tanks and if it was up to you, we would still have an iron curtain over Europe.

  Only when that critical mass happens in the U.S.A, I'll set up a system for you, underground or legally.

  Published: March 20, 2007 1:42 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  If Jack Handy's pessimism was correct, the entire world would be equally unfree. However, there are places that enjoy far more freedom than other places. America was founded as an oasis of freedom and it is not doomed to sink as a fascist nation. Heck, Americans survived New Deal, and things can certainly change for the better, as long as there are enough people to want that. After periodic experimentation with statism, politicians keep failing and they realize that they can make a much better and safer living, if they were much smaller parasites in a rich, freer society ... Some of them may even realize that they are capable of making a decent living by actually competing in markets, rather than racketeering decent people. History is not predetermined and there is no reason to give up ideals of liberty.

  Published: March 20, 2007 2:10 AM

• Nelson

  The totally private system will never work. There will always be violence. But if I had to choose between the monopoly system in place now, vs. some sort of free for all... I'll take the monopoly. We're a good country overall, with a basically good system. Yes I wish our legislators made fewer and better laws... but our judicial system is superior to most and I wouldn't trust a private system to replace it.

  Published: March 20, 2007 2:39 AM

• Angelo

  That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. For, why would private defense firms not be able to defend themselves against states if it was profitable? They'd be able to fight way more efficiently, cheaply, and while protecting their clients better than states could.

  Your argument doesn't go far enough, because it could be said of any private sector service. For instance, if the market's so good at providing food, why does the government deliver so much of it? Or, if the government's so good at providing roads, why does the government provide it?

  That's a brand of historical determinism and a view of might makes right, but certainly not a logical or economical perspective.

  Published: March 20, 2007 8:06 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson,

  Who said that anarcho-capitalism would eliminate violence? Anyway, how does that prove that privatized markets would not work (?) -- when they always work better than a forced monopoly, simply because markets are based on true and heterogeneous will of people, expressed in every-day democratic elections, with self-determination rights of any minority, down to an individual. I said it earlier:

  "Private law enforcement would be far more efficient in protecting individuals from gang violence, because unlike state (monopoly), the private firms can only survive in this market if they attract and protect their customers. The state has no moral rights to fight against gangs, because they are based on the same fundamental principles of statism....
  Gangs and statism will exist as long as there are individuals who want to live at the expense of others -- but unlike state, private law enforcement would fight against all forms of violence against property rights. State by its very existence presupposes the violence against those rights it supposedly aims to protect."

  You said that you would always choose this current monopoly, because you think this system is good for you. Well that's great! But why wouldn't you choose it in a market competition? Why do you have to force your preference on me? There's a problem with your attitude: you are advocating violence against people who would prefer an alternative, just because you think it's for our own good (just like any other statist - that's where you are all fundamentally similar).

  You will only be able to prove the alleged superiority of a present monopoly (anti-economic nonsense) - in a free market competition. New Deal did not allow markets to prove superiority in many areas (like food production) but times have changed. Your trust in the superiority of our present system should be a reason enough for you to denounce violence and embrace anarcho-capitalism.
  

  Published: March 20, 2007 8:32 AM

• Keith

  It is an ecological law that two species cannot permanently inhabit the same niche in the same geographical location. One species will always force the other into a different location, into a different niche, or into extinction.

  The same applies to "governments", public or private. It is inevitable that you will end up with a monopoly of ultimate power vested in a single government at a specific location. The best you can hope for is to define and limit the "niche" and the "location".

  Published: March 20, 2007 11:16 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  Geez... Where do I start on this one. How about: humans are NOT members of different species!

  Attempts of establishing irrelevant analogies with natural sciences when it comes to human (rational) action are so common for all statists. By the way, Kieth's story about the extinction is ecologically inacurate. He suggests that lions are always driving all other spicies (including bacteria) out of their ecosystem - which would suggest that lions only die by stavation. Plus, he neglects to mention symbiotic relationship, so common in nature...

  But why do I even waste time on this? Even if Keith chose a better biological analogy, it would still be irrelevant when it comes to conscious human action. As Rothbard noted:

  "The organismic analogies attribute consciousness, or other organic qualities, to "social wholes" which are really only labels for the interrelations of individuals.[19] Just as in the mechanistic metaphors, individual men are subsumed and determined, here they become mindless cells in some sort of social organism. While few people today would assert flatly that "society is an organism," most social theorists hold doctrines that imply this. Note, for example, such phrases as: "Society determines the values of its individual members"; or "The individual's actions are determined by the role he plays in the group to which he belongs," and so on. Such concepts as "the public good," "the common good," "social welfare," and so on, are also endemic. All these concepts rest on the implicit premise that there exists, somewhere, a living organic entity known as "society," "the group," "the public," "the community," and that that entity has values and pursues ends."

  http://mises.org/daily/2074#4

  Published: March 20, 2007 11:30 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  Geez... Where do I start on this one. How about: humans are NOT members of different species!
  Attempts of establishing irrelevant analogies with natural sciences when it comes to human (rational) action are so common for all statists. By the way, Kieth's story about the extinction is ecologically inaccurate. He suggests that lions are always driving all other species (including bacteria) out of their ecosystem - which would suggest that lions only die by starvation. Plus, he neglects to mention symbiotic relationship, so common in nature...
  But why do I even waste time on this? Even if Keith chose a better biological analogy, it would still be irrelevant when it comes to conscious human action. As Rothbard noted:
  "The organismic analogies attribute consciousness, or other organic qualities, to "social wholes" which are really only labels for the interrelations of individuals.[19] Just as in the mechanistic metaphors, individual men are subsumed and determined, here they become mindless cells in some sort of social organism. While few people today would assert flatly that "society is an organism," most social theorists hold doctrines that imply this. Note, for example, such phrases as: "Society determines the values of its individual members"; or "The individual's actions are determined by the role he plays in the group to which he belongs," and so on. Such concepts as "the public good," "the common good," "social welfare," and so on, are also endemic. All these concepts rest on the implicit premise that there exists, somewhere, a living organic entity known as "society," "the group," "the public," "the community," and that that entity has values and pursues ends."

  http://mises.org/daily/2074#4

  Published: March 20, 2007 11:32 AM

• Nelson

  The only reason free market capitalism works is because we have rules of engagement (laws) that punish negative activities (theft is illegal and will be dealt with), and support good activities (property laws, contract law, etc...). When you eliminate government, this whole system breaks down and we end up with might makes right all over again. Why engage in business if some strong man can just come in and take your inventory without paying for it? And since force is the final arbitar of all decisions, I'd just as soon have a democratically elected government in charge of that force instead of some privately owned army. Now, in reality most good law enforcement is at the local level. Limited and distributed government is good. Absence of all government is bad.

  Published: March 20, 2007 11:38 AM

• Dan Coleman

  Nelson,

  In addition to the article above, let me point you to:

  http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp

  Your dismissal of the case against government is too easy. Who's to say that law couldn't be enforced through voluntary contract?

  Published: March 20, 2007 11:46 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson is again using inaccurate statements.

  Anarcho-capitalism would certainly not mean the elimination of laws - and what he calls "governments."

  Quite the opposite, anarchy would allow the greater competition and more choices for individuals when it comes to protection of private property and enforcement of private contracts. It can be compared to free insurance markets versus corrupted nationalized insurance monopolies in socialism.

  Unlike federalism/confederalism, completely free markets would not bound people to a particular state when they want to live under a different jurisdiction which is closer to their preference. It is the ultimate decentralization.

  Published: March 20, 2007 11:58 AM

• Nelson

  The reason citizens can't opt out of government is because citizens don't want criminals opting out of government enforcement either. That is why a monopoly on force, by elected officials, is desired. Also, voluntary contracts can be broken.

  The anarchist system just replaces the idea of a government selected by the people (one man, one vote) with one purchased by money (only the rich survive).

  Published: March 20, 2007 1:41 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  You're wasting your time, Sasha. Nelson is apparently firmly in the belief that man is evil and force is the only way to resolve disputes.
  
  Strangely, Gene Berman also seems to be in this camp, although his argument was a rather novel way of putting it.

  Published: March 20, 2007 2:02 PM

• Keith

  "You're wasting your time, Sasha. Nelson is apparently firmly in the belief that man is evil and force is the only way to resolve disputes."

  No, but some men are evil and will almost always resort to force to resolve disputes. Men are also social and able to work together to conquer obstacles that are not surmountable individually. What will evil men do?
  

  Published: March 20, 2007 2:30 PM

• Nelson

  Men can do both good and evil. A free market capitalist system allows advancement from doing good (even if the reasons behind the actions are purely selfish). Good governments exist to protect property rights and otherwise set up the basic rules that allow a free market system to work, including peaceful dispute arbitration, and to "discourage" people from advancing by using potentially easier criminal means (such as theft) by being the ultimate enforcer of the "rules of the game." People elect their government officials based on their reasoning of who would do the best job at it.

  Published: March 20, 2007 2:56 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson,

  You are using even more inaccurate statements. I can’t catch up!

  I never said that all people are inherently good. Precisely because some people are committing aggression against private property – we need a market competition that will create a better protection against those trespasses – just like private market already provide superior protection and all other services (you can see this in places like Disney’s Celebration, Florida – compared to dismal downtown Orlando).

  You said that people can’t choose their governments – but that’s an utter nonsense. People already choose their governments based on the level of personal liberties they can lawfully enjoy – but they must move from one state to another (or to other countries). In anarcho-capitalism, they will not have to move (just like you don’t have to move out of state when you change your insurance or any kind of service in capitalism).

  You said that citizens don’t want criminals opting out law enforcement – which is also not true – but it is also irrelevant. Citizens care about their safety and some of them would pay more for a superior service (people already do that indirectly when they choose between local monopolies, like moving from Washington DC to suburbs in Virginia). However, the presence of mixed law enforcement options in anarcho-capitalism will only act as a positive externality against crime – simply because bad law enforcement will no longer be the curse of certain areas. Criminals will have to think twice before they attack property with an unknown type of security protection.

  Plus, in anarcho-capitalism we would have more self-protection from owners themselves (weapon possession)… Anyhow, if you are so convinced in superiority of your law and your law enforcement, why don’t you start advocating a free market competition, which can only prove you right (we both know it wouldn’t and that’s the part of the problem)?

  Please don’t say: “my government is superior, because it can smash you with its force.” New Deal was not economically superior to capitalism, just because at one time it had a force to destroy its market alternatives. Violence against democratic opposition -- that’s what powerful gang does – but it won’t be able to do it if a majority with in it opposes violence against private property rights (why don’t you start advocating that your government truly becomes a Lockean implied contract – from which individuals can go out without a violent rebellion). Or if you don’t believe in democratic change, you should still support anarchists in their ideals, simply because once they reach a critical mass, your government will not be able to crush us at will – and we would both enjoy a market competition with all of its benefits.

  Published: March 20, 2007 3:51 PM

• Nelson

  Violence against democratic opposition -- that’s what powerful gang does – but it won’t be able to do it if a majority with in it opposes violence against private property rights.

  That's not correct. A majority doesn't mean more powerful. A trained and well equiped army... or even one just good at hiding and destroying targets at a whim can cause all kinds of havoc against a majority. Just look at Iraq. There is all kinds of chaos against property and a majority of ordinary civilians who just want to be left alone can't (won't?) really do anything about it. Even carrying a side arm doesn't prevent a car bomb from going off in the market you're shopping at. Your optimism about the inherent goodness of man is nice... it shows that you are a generally good person, but it is also naive.

  Published: March 20, 2007 4:09 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson,

  You continue with inaccurate statements. I did not say that a “majority” must be stronger than a heavily armed minority.

  What I said is that according to the rules of you beloved state -- a relative majority can prevent the violence against its anarchist competitors -- and that is one way of achieving more market competition. If you believe in property rights and Lockean view of proper government, there is no reason why you shouldn’t actively advocate our right for alternative legal jurisdictions and anarcho-capitalism. After all, if you believe that our alternatives would be defeated in a fair and peaceful market competition -- that is even more reason to support out ideals. You are certainly not advocating the right of one group of people to act like a mob that is forcefully holding someone in a “implied contract” in which property rights are violated with an excuse of protecting those rights (typical racketeering a la Brooklyn style)

  The other way of demonopolizing violent government and forcing it to a fair competition with a private sector is by forcing it with massive civil disobedience -- like Estonia got its freedom from Soviet Union (another way is to follow the example of Slovenia, which violently broke out of Yugoslavia, but I gave an oath that I will never advocate such thing in the United States : ) Anyway, even within Estonia, their could be a movement to liberate minorities from their remnants of statism -- including the smallest minority: the individual. I think I was able to show that our cause is worthy of support and that it is quite possible that one day people can achieve this level of market competition (Like I said, things can change - ask former Soviets).

  Published: March 20, 2007 4:30 PM

• Nelson

  What I said is that according to the rules of you beloved state -- a relative majority can prevent the violence against its anarchist competitors -- and that is one way of achieving more market competition.

  So, you're saying you need the state to protect you after all?

  Published: March 20, 2007 4:57 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  By the way Nelson, it is your beloved state and its puppet regime that caused chaos in Iraq. The problem in that country is statism -- not anarchism

  Anarchists don't have a popular support in that country, because people there don't believe in a complete freedom and a positive power of markers. That can change in time... People's trust in liberty in former Soviet Block was extremely low once - now it's the opposite case.
  
  Once Sunny and Sh'ia population get tired of violence and if no single group achieves complete dominance, they will realize that the solution is not in some unitary state (like Saddam's or current Iraq) - nor it can be achieved through division between two statism (Baghdad is heavily mixed and you can't divide neighborhoods without resistance, which would lead to more violence and ethnic cleansing).

  The ultimate solution is in autonomy at the individual level - and this autonomy is called anarcho-capitalism. I am sure that this will be achieved if all state's advocates continue to base their "justification" of state's violence and injustice on pessimism, rather than any just or logical principle.
  

  Published: March 20, 2007 5:05 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson said:

  "So, you're saying you need the state to protect you after all?

  I don't understand how you don't get tired or embarrassed by repeating false statements. I never once said that I need state to protect me. All I said is that I need a relative majority of statist to prevent violence against market alternatives. I am not asking for state's protection - but for the state's respect of my property rights. And if we had a critical mass of people who shared my ideals, I would not even ask that from the state and statists like you.

  Published: March 20, 2007 5:09 PM

• Nelson

  By the way Nelson, it is your beloved state and its puppet regime that caused chaos in Iraq. The problem in that country is statism -- not anarchism

  We just removed the dictator. The rest was up to them.

  Published: March 20, 2007 5:10 PM

• Nelson

  Ok, lets say you have a majority of US citizens saying go have fun on your own property. Create your own system. What are you going to do when you can't leave your own house because the streets are public property of the US and since you don't want any part of us you can't use them? Like I said before, there are way too many holes in the anarchist theory on government. And as soon as you start closing them you end up with a state regardless.

  Published: March 20, 2007 5:17 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson, I answered about Iraq, don't be silly. You just did not remove the dictator - and there is a clash of statism there. I explained when any capitalism can be successful (what conditions must be satisfied to prevent gangs and state from violence), and we already came a long way since the New Deal.

  In other words, rather than advocating a change through civil disobedience and mass-movement confronted against the state, I still hope that it is possible that people like you, Nelson, stand against violations of private property rights. I want to believe that you have a logical capability to understand why mafia-style monopoly rule is unjust and harmful. If you are concerned about our well-being, don't be: just don't support attacks against us.

  If you think that rival protection agencies are going to start shooting each other, ask yourself why U.S.A. and Canada are not at war, although they are in the state of anarchy in respect to each other. People who are completely sovereign and don't have to be obedient in any way to other people, when it comes to language, culture, religion, values -- don't have reasons to be in conflict with their neighbors -- unlike oppressed minorities in a single state (like Iraqi Shia under Saddam and Iraqi Sunny under the U.S. regime there). Anarcho-capitalism will only not eliminate violence based on common "evil," but market competitors that try to attract their customers' support every day, will be far more efficient than a government's monopoly.

  -------

  When it comes to your last posting, you only demonstrated lack of knowledge of basic common law -- not any holes in anarchist theory. Your should read about the concept of "easement" - or "right of way." After that, you can start with concept of "necessity." Private individuals figured out ways to leave their properties when they are surrounded by other people's property, even in Roman times, and perhaps before that time. Plus, why do you suppose that in a purely market economy your government would even try to restrict movement of people (it's potential profit on their roads). You believe that your government isn't idiotic, right?
  

  Published: March 20, 2007 5:34 PM

• Nelson

  I know about right of ways... but your theory doesn't include them. A private firm could buy up the land around you and *not* give you right of way, correct? After all they can opt-out of any system that grants right of way if they want to... or am I wrong in believing this is possible under anarchism?

  Published: March 20, 2007 5:41 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  I think that's enough for today. For communist critique of market anarchism and our response to it, go to: http://blog.mises.org/archives/006350.asp

  Published: March 20, 2007 5:42 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  OK, just "google" terms: "Rothbard" and "easment"... Bye.

  Published: March 20, 2007 5:43 PM

• Kevin B.

  Nelson,

  "there are way too many holes in the anarchist theory on government"

  You are looking for problems, period. Until you start looking for answers, then problems will be all you see. It seems to be unlikely that you've ever cracked a book in attempt to find solutions to the supposed "holes" left after the state had hypothetically been cut down.

  For a moment, consider that just because you can't see a solution to a problem, it doesn't necessarily follow that no-one else can either.

  Published: March 20, 2007 5:44 PM

• Nelson

  So, basically every problem can be solved by going back in time and making sure whatever contracts you sign correct whatever issues you may have. Great system. I guess this is one of those theories that sounds good on paper to some people, and might actually work if the believers' premises were actually correct... just like Communism.

  Published: March 21, 2007 11:35 AM

• Kevin B.

  Sasha Radeta,

  "...rather than advocating a change through civil disobedience and mass-movement confronted against the state, I still hope that it is possible that people like you, Nelson, stand against violations of private property rights. I want to believe that you have a logical capability to understand why mafia-style monopoly rule is unjust and harmful."

  It is becoming apparent that we are in for a bumpy ride.

  Published: March 21, 2007 12:58 PM

• Don

  Nelson,

  I think you are being a dishonest opponent in this discussion. I am not completely convinced about ancap and private law either, but nowhere do I read it implied by ANY of its proponents that "every problem can be solved by going back in time and making sure whatever contracts you sign correct whatever issues you may have." That is not what they are saying-they are saying, to some extent throught implication, that an ancap society would be more contractual than the present one. I have no problem with that.

  Moreover, the comparison with communism is also very dishonest, and a strawman to boot. The ancaps, at least the Rothbardian/Hoppean anway, very elequntely and throughly adress the nature of man, and arrive at their politacal philosophy through a consistent regard for both the nature of man, and a deep understanding of economics. Communists, to the best of my knowledge, never adress the nature of man, and thier economic analyisis in support of thier system is both shallow and contorted.

  The only good thing about communsim (i.e Marxism) is its dialectics, which libertarians can (and have, to some extent) put to very good use. I believe Chris Sciabarra has adressed this in a book.

  In sum, Nelson, I find you to be a dishonest, somewhat underhanded opponent who argues though contrived examples and analogies and when that fails you fall back on fallacies such as strawmen and red herrings. It must be noted that I say this is despite the fact I share your suspicion of private law, altough based on the sound theory and emperical evidence brought forth by it proponents I am becoming more and more convinced of its feasability.

  Published: March 21, 2007 4:09 PM

• Nelson

  Hi Don.

  but nowhere do I read it implied by ANY of its proponents that "every problem can be solved by going back in time and making sure whatever contracts you sign correct whatever issues you may have.

  In "The Ethics of Liberty", Murray Rothbard writes in chapter 29:

  "One example of Nozick’s sanctioning aggression against property rights is his concern with the private landowner who is surrounded by enemy landholders who won’t let him leave. To the libertarian reply that any rational landowner would have first purchased access rights from surrounding owners, Nozick brings up the problem of being surrounded by such a set of numerous enemies that he still would not be able to go anywhere."

  There is the implication that you must in the past have done something in order to overcome a conflict that occurs in the present. I just extended this implication to it's logical conclusion that no matter what contrived scheme a malicious person can come up with, the libertarian answer is "rational people wouldn't get themselves in that situation to begin with."

  As far as the Communism comment goes, it was an emotion evoking statement written to encourage the reader to critically evaluate their theories against the reality of Man's nature rather than their vision of Man's nature. For the most part I feel that the anarcho-capitalist system/theory is based more on faith than on reason.

  Published: March 22, 2007 10:16 AM

• Dan Coleman

  Nelson, I think you need to read Rothbard a little more generously. On this same topic in 'For a New Liberty', he writes:

  "At this point in the discussion, someone is bound to raise the question: If streets are owned by street companies, and granting that they generally would aim to please their customers with maximum efficiency, what if some kooky or tyrannical street owner should suddenly decide to block access to his street to an adjoining homeowner? How could the latter get in or out? Could he be blocked permanently, or be charged an enormous amount to be allowed entrance or exit? The answer to this question is the same as to a similar problem about land-ownership: Suppose that everyone owning homes surrounding someone's property would suddenly not allow him to go in or out? The answer is that everyone, in purchasing homes or street service in a libertarian society, would make sure that the purchase or lease contract provides full access for whatever term of years is specified. With this sort of "easement" provided in advance by contract, no such sudden blockade would be allowed, since it would be an invasion of the property right of the landowner."

  Rothbard's point isn't that in a libertarian society each individual better make sure he's signing tons of contracts with people around him, in order to secure basic needs such as road access, etc.

  Instead, Rothbard is pointing out what government advocates routinely miss: society will organize itself when left to its own devices. I notice that every problem you propose follows the same logical order:

  (1) Service X is currently provided by the government.
  (2) In a libertarian society, service X will not be provided by the government.
  (3) Doesn't this create problem Y, when the chaos of not having service X produced in a libertarian society ensues?

  The problem is that you make a huge philosophical leap from (2) to (3). Namely, you assume that service X is ordered by the government because order wouldn't exist in X without the government, and therefore in a libertarian society chaos would ensue.

  The housing / land / road access scenario is a perfect example. Do you really think social organization in the form of communities, home-owner associations, and other forms of protection against such problems would simply not exist in a free market? They already do! How much more so will these institutions -- voluntarily agreed upon, efficient, and infinitely more ethical -- be allowed to flourish without constant interference from bureaucrats.

  This line of argument is silly. You might as well ask how in the world houses will get connected with basic utilities such as water and electricity in a free market, if landowners don't own a thin band of property extending from their house to the electric company.

  Published: March 22, 2007 10:30 AM

• Nelson

  You're talking about services. I'm talking about malicious intent.

  Published: March 22, 2007 10:54 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson is using wikipedia as his source :)

  Rothbard and Hoppe explained many times that a prior use always establishes the right of easement and this is applicable even in cases of noise or any nuisance.

  Ciao.
  

  Published: March 22, 2007 11:04 AM

• Dan Coleman

  You seem to be equivocating, in my view.

  Your original question had to do with whether it is possible in an anarchist system for a private firm to 'landlock' a person in their own property. The answer to this is, "in the vast majority of cases, no. Is it conceivable? Yes."

  So what? Ask the same kinds of questions about our government.

  Is it possible that a government won't respect people's right to own property, and seize their land from them to give it to a private corporation?

  Is it possible that the government will allow you to live on your land, but charge thousands in taxes every year just for you to retain ownership of it?

  Is the government full of benevolent people, or is it possible that they will act in ways that you claim private citizens will when given the chance? Is there any fear that these government officials will further have State-sponsored use of force, whereas private citizens are restricted by rights?

  And so on. The point isn't to look to see which theory has more holes, it is to see which one is more sound. Are you honestly defending the government's monopoly on coercive force as more ethical than rights, freely-agreed upon associations, and contractual obligations?

  Published: March 22, 2007 11:04 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  Easement is a part of homesteading. If you don't respect someone's easement, you will not respect someone's substantive ownership rights. People who care about their own property rights will not try to violate someone else's -- or they can become the victim of same kind of abuse -- or even suffer from the resistance of the abused. We see the respect for easements even with the illegal construction in slums all over the world, where pathways exist, usually along property lines.

  Again, anarcho-capitalists don't claim that they would eliminate all violence against private property -- but people in anarcho-capitalism would fight against such violence more efficiently than the state, which only exists based on such violence (plus, unlike capitalist businesses, the state doesn’t go out of business when customers are dissatisfied with its performance).
  

  Published: March 22, 2007 12:03 PM

• Nelson

  Are you honestly defending the government's monopoly on coercive force as more ethical than rights, freely-agreed upon associations, and contractual obligations?

  I see government's monopoly on coercive force as necessary in securing all other rights. Force is the ultimate foundation on which all property rights must be built. First does not secure property rights. Strongest does.

  Published: March 22, 2007 12:32 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson,

  "First" establishes his property rights over unclaimed scarce objects. And his property rights can be better secured by competing firms in market for security -- rather then a forced monopoly that does not have to directly compete with anyone to survive. This monopoly only exists by violating those same property rights (mafia), and if it messes up - actually gets more money from coerced customers - instead of going bankrupt and replaced by a more efficient provider...

  This unjust state will not be strong enough to crush its competition, if a democratic majority within it believes in respect for property rights. You didn’t give us a single reason why wouldn’t you support our right to peacefully compete with your beloved state in a market for security. I hope that you don't support violence against those of us who want a different provider, without having to leave our property -- or do you?

  Published: March 22, 2007 1:03 PM

• Kevin B.

  Nelson,

  Property rights rest upon wisdom and understanding. The government monopoly on force is an ignorant one. We have seen in history examples of property rights strangled to death by the force of government coercion.

  Published: March 22, 2007 1:03 PM

• Nelson

  I hope that you don't support violence against those of us who want a different provider, without having to leave our property -- or do you?

  As long as you pay our taxes and do not harm others, I believe you should have the right to do what you want on your own property. But we do need the government's monopoly on force to make sure you and everyone else lives within those guidelines.

  I'll admit that our government often tries to do too much. The way to change that though is by becoming more active in our governing system. Vote, run for office, write letters to our representitives and convince others to do the same. Become more involved in our political process. Do not retreat from it into a hypothetical world that does not and can not exist.

  Published: March 22, 2007 1:51 PM

• Dan Coleman

  Nelson, since your government is the one providing defense services and enforcing rights, what is the harm in letting others leave and form their own separate government?

  Why should I continue to pay your taxes if Maryland, the state that I live in, decides to become autonomous through the democratic process? Your government can continue to defend your rights -- and you can pay their taxes -- and let me and my community pay our taxes and defend our rights.

  Better yet, let my county secede from the state, if the 500k+ citizens here feel they can provide their own defense and rights, what would be the harm in letting us leave? My county's population exceeds that of over 60 countries in the world. Wouldn't you agree that we should be able to form our own government if we wanted to, especially if we felt that our larger government was being tyrannical?

  Would you support any of these?

  Published: March 22, 2007 2:03 PM

• Nelson

  I don't care if your state cecedes. Or even your county. There would still be a law enforcement system in place governing the citizens and enforcing property rights. There would still be courts. There would still be democracy. These are the essence of government. What would be absurd is allowing individuals to "opt out" of local law enforcement. At that point you've removed the rule of law.

  Published: March 22, 2007 3:07 PM

• Kevin B.

  Nelson,

  How does my county have a right that I do not? From where does this right to secede originate, if not the individual?

  Published: March 22, 2007 3:35 PM

• Dave

  So, in essence what Nelson is saying is this:

  "People can do what they want, so long as they do not dare to start competing security agencies and/or courts that they voluntarily enter (join). Should these people have the audacity to voluntarily start what are in essence governments that are competing with my own, I will use the power of my government to squish them, despite the fact they have voluntarily entered this arrangment."

  Does this sum up your position, Nelson? If not why not? Please explain.

  Published: March 22, 2007 3:36 PM

• Nelson

  How does my county have a right that I do not? From where does this right to secede originate, if not the individual?

  "People can do what they want, so long as they do not dare to start competing security agencies and/or courts that they voluntarily enter (join). Should these people have the audacity to voluntarily start what are in essence governments that are competing with my own, I will use the power of my government to squish them, despite the fact they have voluntarily entered this arrangment." Does this sum up your position, Nelson?

  Look, if you guys want to sacrifice this democratic experiment and go to a semi-feudal system where laws come from property owners rather than the citizens, don't expect me to follow. And yes, I suppose I would consent to my government squashing your ability to opt out at will. Can't well have a good government if people willy nilly decide they want to change legal systems every time they don't want to follow a law. By the way, I never claimed a right of secession. I just said I personally wouldn't have issues with states or counties seceding... but the ability to actually do so must either be negotiated or else fought for.

  Published: March 22, 2007 4:37 PM

• Kevin B.

  Nelson,

  The act of secession is not one of tresspass. The right to secede has not been negotiated. Therefore the right has not been forfeited. Therefore the right to secede remains.

  You are willing to sacrifice others' right for...how would you describe it? The greater good?

  Published: March 22, 2007 4:50 PM

• Nelson

  You are willing to sacrifice others' right for...how would you describe it? The greater good?

  The real world isn't the Rothbardian world. America has secured certain rights for its people, but in order to do this it had to sacrifice others. The "others" would include "opting out." You can leave the country, or you can try to change this from within by working through the system or else fighting against it. If at some time you actually form a more perfect government that includes your set of rights, including secession, let me know. In the meantime you should work towards gathering people with votes, or arms, on your side to enable your utopia to exist.

  Published: March 22, 2007 5:44 PM

• Peter

  I see government's monopoly on coercive force as necessary in securing all other rights.

  Please explain how government came about in the first place, then? (Think about it!)

  Published: March 22, 2007 9:15 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson said:
  

  "Look, if you guys want to sacrifice this democratic experiment and go to a semi-feudal system where laws come from property owners rather than the citizens, don't expect me to follow."

  That's a complete nonsense. Laws do not come from property owners - but from citizens who choose the law which best suits their interests. Businesses can make profits only by attracting people with their superior protections -- as well as rules that people are WILLING to follow, with their completely free choice.

  The fact that Nelson calls this direct democracy "feudalism" only shows his terrible ignorance. Similar to feudalism, in statism people cannot ask to be left out of "implicit contract" with government. Like a feudal master -- they simply force their subjects to be under their "protection," or face their attack. The only difference is that statism allows you to escape to a different master (which was actually the privilege of some Serbian serfs under Ottomans)...

  In anarcho-capitalism, people can actually have the absolute freedom of choice in selecting their government. In statism, we only have a violent monopoly, with only a choice of running away from one master to another, and selecting their vassals only every four years (if we get that right at all).

  Since Nelson did not want to answer: whether he supports violence against those of us who want a different provider of security -- I will take his silence as a "yes." That is a typical statist for you... He did not use a single argument that would morally justify the state... He did not state any argument that would prove that monopoly is superior to market competition (and really, he couldn't theoretically make the case)... He just repeated his pessimism and persistently misinterpreted our statements.

  With such "capable" advocates of the state -- I am actually confident that we will have more and more supporters, until we have sufficient privatization to have real options in security and legal protection.

  Published: March 22, 2007 11:44 PM

• Nelson

  Since Nelson did not want to answer: whether he supports violence against those of us who want a different provider of security

  
  I said yes.

  He did not use a single argument that would morally justify the state

  I'm just saying the way it is. Having a country may not be the most "moral" system, but it is the system that works. Unlike your system. With your talk of morality I tend to view Rothbardianism as a religion. Do anarchists make the sign of the A across their chests before meals? Your religion may be perfect in every way in your own mind, but it does not and can not work in the real world.

  Published: March 23, 2007 8:02 AM

• Nelson

  He did not state any argument that would prove that monopoly is superior to market competition

  Monopoly means there is always a "final arbiter." I said this at the beginning. With the ability to opt out at will, laws can be ignored. Conflict resolution will not happen in a peaceful manner if one party can choose not to accept the results.

  Published: March 23, 2007 9:57 AM

• Dan Coleman

  Nelson, you're only knocking down straw men. Even in an anarchist society there would be a final say on legal matters -- including coercive punishment for those found guilty. Why aren't you acknowledging this?

  Besides, since monopoly is so great for defense, let's extend it to other controversial areas like health care (can't have anyone going without!), car insurance, employment (are you against giving the needy jobs, Nelson?), grocery stores, and most other areas of our life. This unbridled freedom simply can't work. . .society is way to corrupt to handle it.

  Published: March 23, 2007 10:07 AM

• Nelson

  Even in an anarchist society there would be a final say on legal matters -- including coercive punishment for those found guilty. Why aren't you acknowledging this?

  Because the anarchists don't agree on it. They keep saying anyone should be able to "opt out" of a system they don't like. What would prevent guilty parties from doing the same? Under your system, nothing. Because you can opt out. Therefore you can't have a justice system. If you say you can't opt out, you no longer have an anarchist system. You have a government. Which is what we already have.

  Published: March 23, 2007 10:54 AM

• Dan Coleman

  Well, I'm not sure which anarchists that you refer to who are in disagreement (there are, after all, too many varieties of 'anarchists' to count -- it is rather common for communists to refer to themselves as such, for example), but the libertarian creed is that no one may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.

  Coercion has its place in an anarcho-capitalist, anarchist, or libertarian (take you pick on the name) society. If a thief steals my car, I am perfectly justified in getting it back, even if it means using physical force.

  Of course law-breakers won't be able to lock their door and say "I'm out! No more law for me!" any more than they currently can. You can't "opt out" of people defending their person or property -- that's the whole point!

  The government, on the other hand, seems to care little for my person and property. Is it any wonder that many find the libertarian system more attractive and -- especially -- more workable?

  Published: March 23, 2007 11:19 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  Nelson,

  After so many misinterpretations (I hoped you finally learned what is feudalism) -- you now started to hallucinate. You may view Rothbard's theory as a religion, but that's just your ignorant opinion. Unlike you, Rothbard based his view both on ethics, as well as sound economics.

  You admitted that you don't have a moral case for government inherently aggressive and unjust existence, yet you support it. Why? You said:
  "Monopoly means there is always a "final arbiter." I said this at the beginning."

  Well that's not an argument at all. You use state’s force as its justification, one more time. Why would one "final arbiter" be preferable in any market? Final arbiters in any market are individual buyers and sellers. They all have different tastes and preference, and market competition would ensure that their wants and needs are satisfied. Isn't that what we would want in any segment of our lives? On the other hand, monopoly doesn't care for the individual needs -- it forces its own will on them. It can afford to be inefficient in its services, as long as it has force to violently eliminate any market alternative.

  How is that a defense of the state? If you have no logical case, why don't you just say so and end with endless, meaningless replies.

  Published: March 23, 2007 11:51 AM

• darjen

  They keep saying anyone should be able to "opt out" of a system they don't like. What would prevent guilty parties from doing the same? Under your system, nothing. Because you can opt out.

  This simply is not true. You can't just go around violating someone's property rights and expect to not be prosecuted for it. If you are using their property, you agree to be under their rules or government. There would be plenty of institutions in place to prevent you from doing this, and to bring you to justice if you did. Just like if you go from one state to another right now, you would be obligated to know and live under the new state's rules. And they will still prosecute you, even if you move out of their jurisdiction. You clearly don't understand how private property works. Being in anarchism doesn't mean there are no ways to protect yourself from invasion.

  Published: March 23, 2007 12:01 PM

• Nelson

  Coercion has its place in an anarcho-capitalist, anarchist, or libertarian (take you pick on the name) society. If a thief steals my car, I am perfectly justified in getting it back, even if it means using physical force.

  And he is justified, in the anarchist system, in using physical force against tresspassers on his property. Including you, or your agency.

  Published: March 23, 2007 12:33 PM

• Nelson

  You can't just go around violating someone's property rights and expect to not be prosecuted for it.

  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.

  Published: March 23, 2007 12:37 PM

• Nelson

  They all have different tastes and preference, and market competition would ensure that their wants and needs are satisfied.

  Theft would serve the same purpose.

  Published: March 23, 2007 12:38 PM

• Nelson

  the libertarian creed is that no one may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.

  So there will be a Libertarian Constitution governing all men with this creed? And a way to enforce it?

  Published: March 23, 2007 12:40 PM

• Dan Coleman

  So there will be a Libertarian Constitution governing all men with this creed?

  In some very general senses, yes. 'Common law' had this kind of authority.

  Will it be an organized doctrine like the U.S. Constitution? That depends on individual societies, but it would likely not be universal.

  
  And a way to enforce it?

  As several of us have said several times: yes.

  Published: March 23, 2007 12:49 PM

• Dan Coleman

  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.

  Published: March 23, 2007 12:52 PM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 23, 2007 1:32 PM

• Nelson

  '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?

  Published: March 23, 2007 1:41 PM

• Kevin B.

  Nelson,

  I do not see how you've reached the conclusion that interdependent jurisdictions would not cooperate with each other.

  Published: March 23, 2007 1:57 PM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 23, 2007 3:07 PM

• Dave

  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
  

  Published: March 23, 2007 3:38 PM

• Dave

  Oops, I meant "data" not "date".

  Published: March 23, 2007 3:41 PM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 23, 2007 4:11 PM

• Kevin B.

  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.

  Published: March 23, 2007 4:37 PM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 23, 2007 5:34 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Neson said:

  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.

  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.
  

  Published: March 23, 2007 9:47 PM

• Nelson

  "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.

  Published: March 24, 2007 1:36 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  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?

  Published: March 24, 2007 4:56 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  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...

  Published: March 24, 2007 5:19 AM

• Daniel Coleman

  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.

  Published: March 24, 2007 7:23 AM

• Daniel Coleman

  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.

  Published: March 24, 2007 10:50 AM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 24, 2007 10:53 AM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 24, 2007 10:55 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  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.

  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.
  

  Published: March 24, 2007 2:07 PM

• Kevin B.

  Nelson,

  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.

  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?

  According to Anarchism, all of this land really belongs to Native Americans.

  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.

  We took it from them by force, disease and deception.

  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 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...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.

  What percentage of people share this point of view? I don't want to waste my energy on the wrong generation.

  If you have a moral unjust feeling about it, leave.

  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!"

  Otherwise live within the rules we have set up and try to change them from the inside

  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.

  Published: March 24, 2007 2:20 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  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.

  Published: March 24, 2007 2:39 PM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 24, 2007 7:24 PM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 24, 2007 7:36 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  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.

  "I believe all individuals within a system should be subordinate to the same set of rules. No person should be above the Law."

  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).

  And the laws should not be different for different people. This is why the Anarchist system is immoral.

  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.

  Published: March 24, 2007 8:41 PM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 25, 2007 12:29 AM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 25, 2007 12:41 AM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 25, 2007 12:48 AM

• Dave

  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

  Published: March 25, 2007 4:04 AM

• Dave

  I see some spelling/grammatical errors in my post. Thats what happens at 2 in the morning...

  Published: March 25, 2007 4:07 AM

• Nelson

  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.

  Published: March 25, 2007 12:10 PM

• DAve

  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!"

  Published: March 25, 2007 2:41 PM

• DAve

  Ha, Ha..I meant "The Not so Wild old WEST" not "WET" ...

  Published: March 25, 2007 2:43 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  But it is more likely to be on the good side if it is based on majority rule rather than buy your own protection.

  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?

  Published: March 25, 2007 2:45 PM

• Dave

  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

  Published: March 25, 2007 3:51 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  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.
  

  Published: March 25, 2007 6:40 PM

• Kevin B.

  Dave,

  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.

  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.

  Published: March 25, 2007 8:56 PM

• Sam

  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?

  Published: April 1, 2007 11:04 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  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.
  

  Published: April 1, 2007 1:30 PM

• Sam

  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.

  Published: April 1, 2007 7:13 PM