Comments (80)

• Tom Woods

  The especially interesting thing about this is that it aired on PBS.

  Published: October 19, 2009 11:59 PM

• Trey Grayson

  I just watched this on the Lew Rockwell Blog.

  Yes. It's wonderful.

  Tracy

  Published: October 20, 2009 12:16 AM

• Some dude

  I don't understand you guys. It doesn't matter if anarchy is impossible and therefore it is not worth talking about getting anarchy to work. Limited government is an oxymoron and therefore can't exist and so it is not worth talking about attaining limited government.

  So what is your motivation? Once you discover those two things, why do you dedicate any more brain cells thinking about the size of government?

  Published: October 20, 2009 12:21 AM

• scineram

  Of course it matters, some dude, so you are wrong.

  Published: October 20, 2009 4:18 AM

• Jake

  LOL at Woods' quote: "The dumb kids are going to regulate the smart guys." - talking about how the dumb business school graduates become regulators and the smart ones start their own businesses.

  Published: October 20, 2009 4:51 AM

• Mike C.

  While I remain a minarchist and believe that society needs a final arbiter in certain areas, this was an excellent show and a great explanation of the anarchist viewpoint.

  More great episodes of McCuistion are available for viewing at http://www.mccuistiontv.com/
  

  Published: October 20, 2009 5:57 AM

• Marc

  somedude,

  It matters because to believe in limiting government you are standing on the side of what is morally justified. Stephan Kinsella pointed this out in a recent interview. You dont push for the abolition of government because it is the most pragmatic thing to do, you do it for moral reasons, at least that is why I believe in anarco-capitalism. Kinsella made the point that too many young libertarians get involved with politics to make immediate changes, and when this does not happen, they become discouraged and abandon libertarianism. If we followed your logic we would give up on prosecuting muderers because it is impossible to stop murder. Standing on the side that is ethically justified provides plenty of impetus for me to fight to the death.

  Published: October 20, 2009 8:25 AM

• Anthony Flood

  Perhaps it's better to say that the hope of limiting government to certain enumerated powers is vain, that is, it is not a reasonable hope, not that "limited government" is an "oxymoron." Jefferson's government was, after all, more limited in its depredations than Stalin's (even if its reach now rivals the latter's).

  Whereas we know a priori an oxymoron to be inconsistent (like "sharply dull," the English translation of ὀξύμωρον), we know only a posteriori that government's power to tax and conscript cannot be kept within bounds. To the equation we must add our experientially acquired knowledge of human nature.

  Of course, we know a priori (i.e., without conducting an empirical survey) that stealing and kidnapping are morally wrong, and so we know a priori that any group of human beings that sustains its existence by stealing and kidnapping is a criminal enterprise. But that is different from the question of whether that enterprise can be kept within Jeffersonian bounds. We have learned the hard way, not by merely reflecting on the meaning of "government," that it cannot.

  Or: the probability that there exists an actual being like Superman is extemely low, but the concept of Superman is not self-contradictory or "oxymoronic."

  Published: October 20, 2009 8:33 AM

• J Cortez

  This was excellent. The fact that this was on PBS is amazing, and yet still I wish for more. A conversation like this should be on prime-time network TV. (A dream, I know.)

  My only complaint is that neither Casey or Woods really hammered away at the war issue. A few words about the state's constant warfare and the evil of "defense" bureaucracies and their constituents would've been great. Economics is important, but war is equally so.

  Published: October 20, 2009 9:07 AM

• Matt

  As naive as it is to think a government can do everything perfect, as naive it is to think that a group of people can somehow self-control without any organization. The ideal presented by these people is a self-controlled society. However, as they admit them selves, people are lazy and want to exert them selves as little as possible to get wealth. But in a society without any government, without any rules, only relying on "self-control", what or who is going to prevent anyone from just stealing from one another? Or kill each other to get what they want? The poor are highly motivated to steal from the rich. The rich have the power to steal from the poor. How is this ever going to work?

  My answer would be: turn on animal planet and look at how a free, government-less society works: all animals just chasing and killing each other in self-interest, the strongest winning.

  A "discussion" like this is a nice thought exercise, but nothing more.

  Published: October 20, 2009 9:39 AM

• Anthony Flood

  Matt, the answer to your question, posed so self-assuredly, is (if I may quote a favorite retort of my late friend Murray Rothbard in similar polemical contexts): "Read a few books!" There is an extensive literature that offers answers to questions that (if your world-weary, dismissive tone is any indication) I suspect haven't even occured to you. Please consider doing your future readers the courtesy of showing where you have surveyed that literature and defeated the arguments you discovered there. Or, alternatively, admitting that they have changed your mind.

  Published: October 20, 2009 10:12 AM

• J Cortez

  Matt, with respect, you are completely wrong.

  Contrary to your claims, we do not need to look at the animal kingdom as an example. No, people aren't perfect, but they aren't baboons. There are historical episodes that describe exactly the opposite of your assertion.

  Any "state" function was at some point a voluntary, market one. There were commercial law merchants, free banks, private coinage, private security services, private roads, and anything else that was necessary for society to function. It wasn't perfect, but society organized itself just fine. The fact these were all voluntary associations limited conflicts. In almost every problem case, the only time you saw trouble was when things became involuntary, when whatever government that held sway in an area enacted draconian laws.

  Published: October 20, 2009 10:22 AM

• Mushindo

  Matt said: 'My answer would be: turn on animal planet and look at how a free, government-less society works: all animals just chasing and killing each other in self-interest, the strongest winning. '.

  I dont know what episodes of animal planet you watch, but you are grossly miscategorising things. Animals that go around killing one another with carefree abandon are very rare indeed. Sure, lions often eat zebras, but thats no different from humans eating cows. If you are to look at the animal kingdom for comparison with humans, count the frequency with which animals of a particular species kill one another. It does happen, but its very rare indeed - for most species of mammal, there are powerful mechanisms at play preventing large-scale killing of one by another ( and when it does happen, its never very far away from sex - now why does that sound familiar? ).

  In the human world, self-organised systems of law that emerge from the bottom up invariably mature into robust institutions that outlast successive government regimes, because they have been subjected to an ongoing process of evolutionary refinement - what works is retained, what fails is discarded, and this adaptation is ceaseless. Such is th elaw of jurisprudence - careful consideration of the case at hand, comparing it to prior judgments of different cases in the past , and distilling the principles that emerged from them to inform the judgment in the case at hand an ongoing process of discovery of what people at large consider to be just and right.

  ON the other hand, Legislation dispensed from lawmaking bodies attempt to enforce what the lawmakers think is right whether or not it accords with public consent, and moreover try to cover all concievable minutiae instead of turning on universally accepted principles of justice. I'd go as far as saying that most legislation emanating from governments amounts to deliberate constitution circumvention at worst or attempts to extinguish the historical precedent established by jurisprudence at best, but either way it perverts justice rather than dispenses it.

  which is why the law of jurisprudence has a pedigree of centuries if not millennia, while mere legislation by fiat tends to get written, repealed, and re-written with the coming and going of successive government regimes.

  You seem to think that humans are helpless drones, and need to be firmly directed for their own good, otherwise they will either tear one another apart, or lie down and die. This is both patronising and wrong, besides begging the question that if people are indeed like that, who is qualified to do the directing and on what grounds are they exempted from the general rule?

  But people are not like that. They Act, and they respond to changed circumstances by changing their behaviour. They have a deep urge to co-operate with the other people around them to mutual benefit (wherein lies the origin of all markets and voluntary civil institutions), and they do not willingly do things that bring them more cost than benefit without changing their minds and trying something else. And if that something else entails doing somebody else down, they are naturally constrained - that somebody else is not going to roll over and play dead. He will respond proportionately to the seriousness of the aggression, just as he will co-operatively respond to a proposal that yields mutual benefits.

  The power of the human propensity to co-operation is immense and practically unlimited. This power does not require the influence of government for it to be realised, but government invariably subverts and emasculates it, and indeed actively forments conflict. Look back in history and you'll find just about every large-scale conflict on record had the fingerprints of the State - government - all over them. Was there ever a war that happened without a government (conscripting and)directing the troops on each side?

  To say government is necessary to forestall conflict between people is to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

  Published: October 20, 2009 11:33 AM

• Ohhh Henry

  "But in a society without any government, without any rules, only relying on "self-control", what or who is going to prevent anyone from just stealing from one another? Or kill each other to get what they want? The poor are highly motivated to steal from the rich."

  Without govt control then people protect themselves. While the motivation and the will to commit crime may still exist for some people, the risk of being killed while trying to rob and murder your neighbor is too great to make this a viable strategy.

  WITH govt control, then the poor, or anyone who can get out the vote and/or seize control of the army, can rob and kill with utter impunity. They simply write down on a piece of fine vellum parchment that they have the legal right to rob and kill, put on shiny badges, and then go to town. They do not need to exercise self control because there is no downside to their depredations as long as they can prevent other factions from displacing them. This is exactly what you see in the USA right now - a fake "two party" system in which the same gang controls everything no matter how you vote. Their only fear is of secession by regions and individuals which is why, when push comes to shove, they need to place state militias under federal control, they need to fund and thus gain some control over local police, they need gun control and gun/ammo registries, and they need an wide array of crowd control devices such as the nerve-ray and sonic cannon gadgets now being developed and deployed.

  They lose in the end because by simultaneously looting the financial system they destroy the wealth of the same people whom they wish to plunder. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. But of course they're willing to give it a really good try.

  Published: October 20, 2009 11:41 AM

• George

  Given that the ancient world was one of limited (tribal) government that slowly evolved into huge empires; how does one propose to limit the growth of government in an anarcho-capitalist society?

  Published: October 20, 2009 12:01 PM

• fundamentalist

  The real weakness in anarchism is that for it to work, everyone would have to be anarchist in philosophy or those who held to other ideas would tear the society apart. But that's the same weakness in minarchism that anarchists point out.

  If you truely had the rule of law, including respect for property, you would get the same results with minarchy, a dictatorship or anarchism. The rule of law is the important element, not how much government you had.

  Published: October 20, 2009 12:38 PM

• G8R HED

  @Matt - "My answer would be: turn on animal planet and look at how a free, government-less society works: all animals just chasing and killing each other in self-interest, the strongest winning."

  In addition to the other responses above, Matt:
  IF what you ascribe to man is true and as you describe - that man is "animalistic" - what are the chances that any particular man is capable of any responsibility whatsoever, much less the responsibility of an office of ultimate authority.

  In other words, WHO in your construct of humanity WORTHY?

  ------------------------------

  @George - "how does one propose to limit the growth of government in an anarcho-capitalist society?"

  One must first conclude such limitation ought to occur.
  So long as choice (secession) and competition (against a monopoly of ultimate authority) remain, who is to say what societal organizations should be limited at all?

  Our little subdivision could be used as an example. Our road and services are private. We all choose who services our lawns, driveways, septics, homes, etc...
  Yet we all hold seperate religious or non-religious affiliations, our social affiliations differ, we shop at different stores, take separate vactations....
  Our commonality is that should any dispute arrive among neighbors, we agree (by prior contract) to resolve those disputes amongst ourselves.
  Our differences are no hinderance to cooperative existence.

  Published: October 20, 2009 1:07 PM

• Ohhh Henry

  "If you truely had the rule of law, including respect for property, you would get the same results with minarchy, a dictatorship or anarchism. The rule of law is the important element, not how much government you had."

  But the concept of "the rule of law" requires those controlling the monopoly law enforcement apparatus to act in the best interests of other people instead of in their own interests. This goes against human nature, which is why all attempts to create a limited government result in the controlling elites gradually expanding their own power and wealth and promoting policies of bloodshed and plunder instead. Because of this inherently unsatisfactory nature of archism, one must always strive to minimize it - tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

  Published: October 20, 2009 1:12 PM

• Anthony Flood

  Our "fundamentalist" poses a false disjunction. All that is necessary for anarchism to "work" is that enough of us, not "everyone," come to understand that we will not relate to each other by means of legalized plunder, just as our recent ancestors came to understand that they would no longer relate to other human beings as chattel slaves, as they had for ages. Anarchocapitalists believe it's worth finding out how much is "enough."

  From false disjunction to petitio principii: "If you truely [sic] had the rule of law, including respect for property, you would get the same results with minarchy, a dictatorship or anarchism." This bald assertion assumes the point in dispute, namely, that anarchism and its "archist" alternatives are equally respectful of property rights. The anarchocapitalist's point is that they are not. More importantly, his opponents do not want to establish universal respect for property rights. They rather strenuously insist on making exceptions, whether for practical, moral, or theological reasons, none of them good. And then they have the nerve to ask the anarchist how anarchism can "work" if not "everyone" goes along with it. They should look in the mirror and ask why they don't go along with it.

  Published: October 20, 2009 1:54 PM

• Russ

  Of course limited government is not a contradiction in terms. Even if you say that a government must be able to undeniably enforce its rule, which basically means it must be so powerful that nothing else can challenge it, it can still be limited if it limits itself. Of course, people in positions of power tend not to want to give up power, and in fact usually want more. But that does not mean that limited government is an oxymoron, that is, a contradiction in terms. If he were arguing that limited government tends to go against human nature, or tends to devolve into less limited forms over time, I would be more inclined to agree.

  Published: October 20, 2009 3:23 PM

• Richard Garner

  Mike C says that he believes that "that society needs a final arbiter in certain area," and for this reason he rejects anarchism in favour of minarchism. I'm not sure where the argument is, though. What is this thing called "society," who is in it, and who is not, and why? Why does society need a final arbiter, rather than disputing parties need it? Why should everybody in a society have the same final arbiter? And if there is no reason why they should not, then how have you established a case for minarchy? If you and I have a final arbiter of our disputes, and you and your neighbour a different one, you a) have a final arbiter for disputes, and b) lack a monopoly over final decision making in society, and so a government.

  Published: October 20, 2009 3:46 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Of course limited government is not an oxymoron--it is, however, inherently unstable, as giving some people power over others is an irresistable temptation to use that power, especially if they have a good cause or end in mind. This is also in answer to Matt's point. If people are lazy and will take the easy way of doing things, it's all the more important to not have the Big Stick of government around for people to use against others.
  
  It is also a philosophical battle--without the legitimacy that people grant government, any group of people trying to control others would be considered a criminal gang by society, not a government. This probably won't stop some more ambitious people from trying, but they will have a harder time accomplishing anything worthwhile or long-lasting without that legitimacy.

  Published: October 20, 2009 4:31 PM

• Matt

  Interesting discussion has followed my remarks. Maybe my remark about animal planet gave the wrong impression or I should explain my opposition to the notion of "no government" differently.

  The thing that people who oppose "government" seem to forget here is that in a democracy that government is us. We ourselves are the ones who decide who is in charge of something! We as a society developed and discovered that to organize some things, we can decide on some rules and appoint some people to take care of certain things. It's the same process as if you were with a small group of people walking in a forest and one of you is very good at wayfinding. You ask that person to lead and vote if everybody agrees. Now if at some point you loose your way, you can vote again and point out someone else to lead the way.

  Another simple example is how we drive on a road. We discovered that it is better for everybody involved if we agree to drive on the one side of the road. So we set ourselves a rule to drive on the right side. In some countries the people decided to drive left. So be it, no problem. Now I can safely go on the road because I can trust that everybody drives on the same side. In case someone drives on the wrong side of the road, he gets a small fine and learns not to do it again.

  I understand that some people are disappointed in the way "the government" works. But the answer is not to get rid of it entirely, but to change it in such a way that it works better. One big problem in the US especially is that democracy is crippled by Big money having too much influence on congress and politics. Now the solution is not getting rid of congress, it's getting rid of any money involvement (so no more sponsors, less lobbyists, etc) so that the interest of the congressman is again aligned with the people who voted for him instead of the pharma industry who gave him money.

  The whole idea of a free democracy is that everybody has a vote. Every couple of years there's an election and we can decide who will be in charge and what has to be done. If we let go of the free democracy and just let everything develop as it will, what you might end up with is some sort of dictatorship of multinational X who partnered with multinational Y and has gathered so much power that it can control everyone. If there is no government, if there are no elections, no public army, how are we going to prevent that?

  Published: October 21, 2009 4:36 AM

• Gil

  Of course there's a need for a final arbitrator on a parcel of land because to have otherwise is 'null sovereignty'. 'Anarcho-Capitalism' doesn't abolish government it merely privatises it. Government is the term for the public ownership of land therefore anarcho-Capitalism means land ownership in held in private ownership and the owners get to determine the rules for their land and what the punishments are. The idea of overlapping, floating jurisdictions are false - if someone can tell you what you can and can't do on your own land then you're back to the Libertarian hypothesis of the formation of government (a gang of thugs who swagger down to a private village and declare new ownership through the threat of force).

  To say anarcho-Capitalism will be substantially different is bunk too. The idea of that land ownership and sovereignity could stay so small that everyone is a sovereign landower is ludicrous as small principalities would be as safe as someone all alone in international waters being attacked by pirates. H.OA.s are the more likely scenario as people rent land the same way people alreadly become landholders relative to government. The H.O.A. council will decide the laws on their piece of land and will probably link up with other H.O.A.s for a common defence against invaders effective creating a private city-states and the city-states may link up with other private city-states via trading routes effectively creating a private nation. Hence things would come full circle except the landowners, councils, rules, rents, etc. will have emerged privately and would thus be agreeable with Libertarians.

  Published: October 21, 2009 7:07 AM

• mpolzkill

  Matt says:

  "Interesting discussion has followed my remarks"

  Interesting take; that "discussion" was actually his points being systematically and completely dismantled by about eight people who obviously know more about the subject at hand. I await with pleasure the next dismantling that's coming, but note how it all has absolutely no effect on him other than perhaps making him move from his newest bromide ("We the People") to still a third one (as he quickly dropped his "Animal Planet" gambit for the stronger mythology). Does any of this have the slightest effect on him? No. The training we all receive as children from "the government" (quotation marks on that, that was a new tactic to me) really can be admired in a certain sick way. Very few (for whatever reasons, I don't think it's just intelligence, or even primarily) can shake it. Ortega y Gasset had some great thoughts on exactly how it was that Matt's misplaced unflappability was created (literally en masse).

  "It's the same process as if you were with a small group of people walking in a forest and one of you is very good at wayfinding."

  I would suggest Matt looks into Plato's Republic and thinks about Plato's metaphor of "the ship of state", but I'm sure he'll have a different take than I do.

  Published: October 21, 2009 7:32 AM

• fundamentalist

  Ohh Henry: “But the concept of "the rule of law" requires those controlling the monopoly law enforcement apparatus to act in the best interests of other people instead of in their own interests.”

  No, it just means that everyone is law abiding. They will follow the law (natural law not positive law) instead of their instincts. It does require self-control.

  Anthony: “All that is necessary for anarchism to "work" is that enough of us, not "everyone,"

  OK, I’ll accept that it just takes a majority. There’s no telling how large the majority needs to be, but it must be large enough to defeat attempts by the minority to take over. I would guess that would be around a two thirds majority.

  Anthony: “This bald assertion assumes the point in dispute, namely, that anarchism and its "archist" alternatives are equally respectful of property rights.”

  No it doesn’t. It assumes that all forms of government are different than they would be without the rule of law. For example, what’s the point of a dictatorship if you can’t break the law? If the majority of the people abide by and insist on the rule of law, then dictators, monarchs and democracies won’t have anything to do. They won’t have any laws to pass and they won’t be able to violate anyone’s property rights. They’ll be nothing more than figureheads.

  Michael: “Of course limited government is not an oxymoron--it is, however, inherently unstable, as giving some people power over others is an irresistable temptation to use that power, especially if they have a good cause or end in mind.”

  And anarchist states are stable? How many are still around? No system is stable if the attitudes of the people toward the law change. If people are law abiding, they need no government. In that case, someone call call themselves king or the representative of the people, but he has no real power. A national representative might be a good idea for dealing with foreign nations, though.

  Michael: “This probably won't stop some more ambitious people from trying, but they will have a harder time accomplishing anything worthwhile or long-lasting without that legitimacy.”

  That’s true as long as the law abiding citizens form a significant majority. But history has proven that tiny minorities find it easy to take over a country if the majority doesn’t care.

  Matt: “We as a society developed and discovered that to organize some things, we can decide on some rules and appoint some people to take care of certain things.”

  That’s the job of judges in anarchy. When disputes arise both parties agree to abide by the decision of a disinterested third party. Judges under anarchy don’t write law, they discover what natural law is. There really is no need for government beyond judges. That’s how God organized the only government he ever created.
  

  Published: October 21, 2009 8:19 AM

• mpolzkill

  fundamentalist: "OK, I’ll accept that it just takes a majority"

  Keep moving down: I don't know what the magic number would be, but I'm sure it's not as high as 51%. I don't think 51% of Americans wanted out from under London, for instance.

  I think you next alluded to the thing low level statists like Matt don't seem to grasp: rule comes from consent, and the percentage consenting must be very, very high. I said low level statists, because high level statists sure grasp this fact:

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/pat-buchanan-worries-the_n_327758.html

  A tiny minority is completely fed up (and the right kind of tiny minority here) and the State media's panic is palpable.

  Published: October 21, 2009 8:37 AM

• matt

  fundamentalist: "That’s the job of judges in anarchy. When disputes arise both parties agree to abide by the decision of a disinterested third party. Judges under anarchy don’t write law, they discover what natural law is. There really is no need for government beyond judges. That’s how God organized the only government he ever created"

  Ok. So we, as two individuals, have a dispute. We need a third party judge. However, I don't agree on the judge you pick and punch you in the face, ending the dispute. Or I secretly hand over some money to the judge to rule in my favor. Now what? :)

  In the end this whole discussion comes down to some fundamental believe about what works better and fundamental beliefs about human nature. I have yet to see an anarchy some where which is successful. But feel free to buy up some deserted island some where and try. Even better, you are free to start your own "The party for Anarchy", participate in 2012 and get rid of all government in the US. If enough people vote for you, of course. O wait, that won't work as "we", the majority, are all indoctrinated by "the government" so we are not able to think freely and understand how much better an anarchy is.
  Maybe then use force to coerce the majority into getting rid of their government? O wait, that's not allowed either.
  Mmm, well then the only option is buying up the deserted island then, isn't it?

  Published: October 21, 2009 9:43 AM

• Gil

  "That’s the job of judges in anarchy." - fundamentalist.

  * face palm! *

  Where the flipping heck do Judges get their power? What right do they have to overrule sovereignty? Why would a murderer agree to submit a third party but prefer to physically stop any attempts to stop him? What's stopping a party from holding out indefinitely because he's waiting for a favourable decision? In fact, yes, people will prefer to conflict sometimes than cede any ground to their enemies. I'm sure you could tell the Israelis and Palestines to "just get along and stop wasting lives and resources" and see if they care.

  Published: October 21, 2009 9:49 AM

• mpolzkill

  Matt says:

  "O wait, that won't work as 'we', the majority, are all indoctrinated by 'the government' so we are not able to think freely and understand how much better an anarchy is."

  That is pretty much spot on, if one subtracts the "an" and the sarcasm (how else would the State gets the credit for what it does not do). Yes, he can not clearly see what anarchy is. He can not understand natural human action now any more than a "creationist" can understand the evolution of species.

  "I have yet to see an anarchy some where which is successful"

  Why else would he not see? Almost everywhere and in all ways that people are not commanded by his imagined super-men, people thrive and create through co-operation and mutual benefit. The world *is* in a state of anarchy, it is merely that there is *so* much crime and other unproductive activity today.

  Another tiny minority with a huge effect: freelance criminals by whose actions the far more destructive crimes of the State are justified by the State itself and its dupes/victims.

  All "we", and not a majority of us, have to do is wake up, get educated, throw off the criminal gang in D.C. and then sincerely resolve ourselves to always minding only our own business. No small thing, but not impossible either.

  Published: October 21, 2009 10:04 AM

• mpolzkill

  * (how else does the State get the credit for what it does not do?)

  Published: October 21, 2009 10:09 AM

• Mike C.

  @ Richard Garner… In theory I am supportive of the idea of no monopolistic government, I simply do not see anarchy as a viable or practical mechanism for solving all disputes. I admit that I am not fully versed in the theory of anarchy but I have seen nothing yet that convinces me that it would work. A few questions that I, and I would think others, have are as follows, and if anyone cares to elaborate on these issues or point out further reference materials I am receptive and appreciative.

  When disputes arise between owners that cannot be remedied amongst them selves then some sort of impartial arbitration is generally desirable to maintain the peace within the overall community of owners. However, what is to stop party A, B, C, or D from simply rejecting private arbitration altogether, or accepting arbitration and then rejecting the decision of an arbiter afterward. What mechanism is there for the ultimate enforcement of any private arbiter’s decision within the anarchist structure?

  If party A damages party B's property but party A and his/her family and friends happen to own half the town including the local banks and arbitration companies then how would party B's interest be served any better, or even as well, than in the current government run system?

  Or if party A happens to murder party B on party A’s property, or on uninhabited desert property, then what mechanism would there be for investigating or even trying party A for such a murder? If there is no private entity with any real interest in party B, that has the real teeth to truly enforce final decisions, then how would party B have any meaningful physical protection within such an environment?

  I am certainly not in love with the current lethargic, corrupt and bureaucratic government run court system that we have today, and perhaps I missed something in my admittedly limited study of anarchism, but it does seem to me that a private system would mostly favor the biggest owners, or groups of owners, and be of little if any use to the less prosperous owners within the community... and if that is the case then it wouldn't be a very good trade off for most of the individual owners involved.
  

  Published: October 21, 2009 10:20 AM

• mpolzkill

  Mike C.,

  Nearly every position taken against more anarchy (under natural law) is a variation of yours here: to paraphrase yours and Matt's: "what will replace the State will be state-like." Maybe; but when their badges and titles and oaths to no one are taken away, the criminals will not have the consent of most or the legal right to tax. And all their myriad laws barring us from ignoring or fighting them will be no more.

  In a free world, if you were screwed by someone who then refuses arbitration, stop doing business with them and then seek out his other victims in helping to warn his future ones. In our world, this "final arbiter" will always behave just as we are seeing. Because we can not guarantee you (or even believe in) a perfect world, this tells you to stick with the devils you know? Probably. It seems the only way people learn is when it's their time to feel the pain. If it's not strong enough yet, just wait, it's coming.

  ("nice thought exercise, but nothing more.")

  Right.

  Published: October 21, 2009 10:43 AM

• mpolzkill

  One other point: shouldn't all minarchists who claim the need for a "final arbiter" be down with Obama's World Police? I guess they just don't like the way he's handling it all. Keep sending him unsolicited policy suggestions over the internet and through your congressmen, that'll do the trick! "We the People!"

  All discussion is futile until it is understood that no republic can be anywhere near as large as the U.S. is.

  http://www.vtcommons.org/journal/2006/03/don-livingston-republicanism-and-size-part-1

  I also find the anarchist "strategy" nuts. Makes anarchy look like Utopianism when its statism that's Utopian. We don't need to take over the world, or anything (or prove anything). Go for republicanism and then find a slice of far purer anarchy in one.

  Published: October 21, 2009 11:00 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  The thing that people who oppose "government" seem to forget here is that in a democracy that government is us.
  
  This is one of the big lies that keeps people believing in the "legitimacy" of their government. All it takes is you and a majority to change government--if you're not in the majority, tough luck!
  
  Vote them out of office? Voting is a clumsy and ineffective way of making change--who decides who or what is allowed on the ballot that you get to vote on? What if you dislike 75% of candidate A's platform, and 50% of candidate B's platform? What kind of change will your vote accomplish then, especially when you can only vote every 2 or 4 years on candidates/issues? And you are, as mentioned above, in the minority?
  
  Create a new political party? Run for office? The "objectively neutral" organization that is government is surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly) biased when it comes to the electoral process--if you aren't part of the status quo, the rules are stacked against you, making it harder to do things like create a new political party, much less to run for office as anything other than a crank or joke for the media.
  
  Of course government is run by special interest and big money--the system is fundamentally organized to minimize the actual value and input of the individual--to make any real difference, you have to be part of a majority, or at least a sizeable, influential minority. Government power is the big stick that the power hungry reach for to beat everyone else over the head and get their way. It is a power structure that facilitates tyranny, it doesn't protect us from tyranny, except maybe the way a protection racket protects you from other criminals.
  
  Changing government doesn't change the basic fact that government legitimizes the power of some people over others. Things like campaign finance reform isn't going to change that.

  Published: October 21, 2009 11:12 AM

• fundamentalist

  Socialism is more than an economic system. It tries to solve the problem of evil in the world.

  Mpolzkill: “I'm sure it's not as high as 51%. I don't think 51% of Americans wanted out from under London, for instance.”

  As I wrote above, tiny minorities have been able to force their will upon the people if they’re violent enough. But anarchy requires that the vast majority, probably over 2/3, activily support anarchy. Suppose that 5% support anarchy and 5% want a dictator so they can rob the people at will. The other 90% don’t care. Anarchists won’t force anyone to support them and won’t rob anyone, so their resources are limited to what they have. The mob is willing to kidnap, murder, rape, steal, bribe and do whatever they need to get the support of the 90%. Those 90% will at least yield, if not support the thugs. That’s what’s happening in Afghanistan today.

  Douglass North has a book out about traditional and modern societies. Traditional societies are those in which the ruler gives his supporters the freedom to pillage the masses at will with impunity in exchange for their continued support. Hitler and his SS are an extreme example, but most governments in the world today follow the traditional model. The traditional state has dominated mankind since the beginning of history while modern states are recent and few. Modern societies are the democratic, equality under the law, societies. Modern democratic states are relatively half way between traditional states and anarchy and they are fragile and short lived in terms of all human history.

  So why do you think the traditional society is so robust, while modern and anarchist societies so fragile? After all, anarchist societies have existed in the past, but they are even fewer than democratic states and much more fragile.

  Matt: “I don't agree on the judge you pick and punch you in the face,”

  That’s why anarchy requires that the vast majority consent to the rule of law and exercise the self-discipline to not punch someone else. Anarchy would require great self-discipline.

  Gil: “Where the flipping heck do Judges get their power?”

  In anarchy, the get if from their education, experience, wisdom and the consent of the people. Their power derives from the fact that the people have agreed to refrain from violence and to voluntarily submit to the decisions of judges.

  Gil: “In fact, yes, people will prefer to conflict sometimes than cede any ground to their enemies.”

  That’s why anarchy can’t work unless the vast majority of the people believe it and exercise self-discipline.
  

  Published: October 21, 2009 11:31 AM

• mpolzkill

  fundamentalist,

  You either have no concept of anarchy or you are deliberately making it out to be a fragile system in the furtherance of your "archy": your concept of God (as you try to bring almost everything around to that.) States are what's fragile, they feed off the anarchic labors and production of their livestock. The more violent they are, the more fragile. America grew strong because here there was very little of what you describe from out of the textbook (among white males at any rate). Almost all their children have forgotten how it all came about though. Minus the "anti-Semitism" the country is becoming a pretty fair imitation of Nazi Germany, writ larger, and they are about to find out how fragile that really is.

  Everything that works takes tremendous self-discipline. But I'd bet you think that humans don't have much of that, if Paul of Tarsus is any guide. At any rate, I'm all for you having an independent republic with whatever strain of fundamentalism you are under (if there are enough of you, maybe that's why you're on this rocky soil so much), I'm sure that wouldn't satisfy you, though, much like it wouldn't satisfy Matt here.

  Published: October 21, 2009 12:00 PM

• matt

  Ok so it comes down to this: you guys think that the majority of people have been somehow indoctrinated in believing in democracy and an elected government. And you believe that the vast majority of people are happy despite this, and re-electing their governments again and again and again (in the thousands of free democratic elections that have been held so far in recent history in countries all over the world).

  But let me ask this: what if they have not been indoctrinated? What if all those people really do believe in a free democracy with an elected government to manage certain things like roads, laws, police, etc?

  Published: October 21, 2009 12:30 PM

• mpolzkill

  That's not very clear, Matt. Could you rephrase it? What is the difference between being indoctrinated and in "really" believing in doctrines? You mean the difference between true doctrine and false ones? How would you know the difference? How much time have you been exposed to opposing ideas? No offense intended (it can't be helped here), but judging from your posts, it must be approaching nil.

  I'm sure the masses you site "really" believe in the necessity for what you list. They are really wrong, and it doesn't matter how many of them there are.

  "have been somehow indoctrinated"

  Somehow? Where's the mystery, Matt? How much money does the government confiscate for *their* schools where they teach *their* version of history, civics and citizenship (while altogether leaving out things like economics and basic logic)? It's a coincidence you have the same doctrines? It's a coincidence your doctrines always aggrandize the State?

  Published: October 21, 2009 12:46 PM

• fundamentalist

  mpolzkill: "You either have no concept of anarchy or you are deliberately making it out to be a fragile system in the furtherance of your "archy"

  So where are all of the anarchic societies, then? If they're so robust, there should be a lot of them and they should have histories as long as those of thug states, like Rome.

  mpolzkill: "America grew strong because here there was very little of what you describe from out of the textbook (among white males at any rate)."

  I hate to be the one to break it to you that Santa Claus is a myth, but the US never was an anarchic society. There were some shooting star anarchies in isolated places that flamed out. Yes, the US was closer to anarchy than we are today. It was minarchic. And guess why? Because of their religious beliefs. That should ruin your day.

  Published: October 21, 2009 1:22 PM

• Mike C.

  Mpolzkill said” Mike C, Nearly every position taken against more anarchy (under natural law) is a variation of yours here: to paraphrase yours and Matt's: "what will replace the State will be state-like." Maybe; but when their badges and titles and oaths to no one are taken away, the criminals will not have the consent of most or the legal right to tax. And all their myriad laws barring us from ignoring or fighting them will be no more.”

  I have taken no concrete position on anarchy as of yet, I was simply asking practical questions because I want a better understanding of why some think anarchy a superior or more practical way in a world with zero perfection and even fewer angels.

  Mpolzkill said, “In a free world, if you were screwed by someone who then refuses arbitration, stop doing business with them and then seek out his other victims in helping to warn his future ones.”

  This option might work fine against the owner of the dry cleaner down the street but go back to my original post and answer the serious real questions if you are interested. Or try this one… if party B were hit by party A’s car, and it were established that party A was obviously at fault, and party B lost his/her savings, property, and ability to work then what final recourse would party B have under an anarchic system of law?

  Mpolzkill said, “In our world, this "final arbiter" will always behave just as we are seeing.”

  In the real world someone is always bound to act as a final arbiter. If one person is threatened or wronged then they will, if they must, act as their own arbiter. However, in any large group, it is not always practical or desirable to handle matters in this way.

  And btw, being a mini-archist does not mean supporting unconstitutional overarching monopolistic governments or compulsory taxes and duties. Nor does it mean that you do not recognize the dangers of both criminals and the contracted organizations – Constitutional Governments -- that, throughout history, have eventually become huge above the law mobs run by the same.

  However, since it would seem obvious to most people that we aren't going to just trip over a perfect world tomorrow and that these governments, for better or worse, are not simply going to dry up and blow away anytime soon, would it not seem more practical to try and fix the devil we know while we can vs. just throwing in the towel and hiding out in Montana waiting for the end of civilization to come?
  

  Published: October 21, 2009 1:32 PM

• mpolzkill

  "That should ruin your day."

  Yep, clueless. Yes, *more* anarchic, and the more the better (under natural law).

  - - - - - - - - - - -

  Mike, it doesn't matter what you think you support, when you support the State, you get it all.

  "would it not seem more practical to try and fix the devil we know while we can vs. just throwing in the towel and hiding out in Montana waiting for the end of civilization to come?"

  That is a false dilemma on *both* sides. You can not fix it, and fighting it does not entail hiding out.
  The things on here from the three of you are so deeply wrong, so off-base, that there is no way to start with you. You are identifying the State with civilization for one thing; *more* of your state training. I've had enough for one day. I'm sure someone else will take on the hopeless task here. Really, almost everyone over the age of 21 who has not been mentally emancipated yet will most probably stay that way. The hope is for future generations to understand and *save* civilization, if *you* as a mass of statists leave them anything. It's very much like in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" when Sydney Poitier tells his father that blacks are just going to have to wait for him and the rest of his generation to all die before they can get anywhere (obviously he wasn't aware that most of them were just going to fall into the hands of new parents: The Democratic Party, haha)

  Published: October 21, 2009 2:37 PM

• Matt

  mpolzkill: "That's not very clear, Matt. Could you rephrase it? What is the difference between being indoctrinated and in "really" believing in doctrines? You mean the difference between true doctrine and false ones? How would you know the difference? How much time have you been exposed to opposing ideas? No offense intended (it can't be helped here), but judging from your posts, it must be approaching nil."

  The difference is huge. You are saying that the majority of people have been misled/indoctrinated/forced/brainwashed by some evil government into believing that democracy and an elected government is the good thing for them, while in reality it is not.
  I am saying that most people are free to think for them selves. That even though they have been influenced by things they learned in school, they still have the ability to think and decide what is good and what is bad.

  But, let's suppose that you are right, for the argument. Let's assume that it is possible for large amounts of people to be brainwashed into believing something untrue. The minds of the majority of people are being "controlled" by some evil government. The logical problem now is, how do we know if you yourself have not been brainwashed? By the things you have read in books, by reading things on this website, by hearing people with these anarchistic beliefs. Maybe you have been misled into believing in something untrue :)

  Published: October 21, 2009 2:44 PM

• mpolzkill

  Matt,

  Oh brother, do you imagine I haven't heard your crude tactics a thousand times?

  Nothing so elaborate, no control, no "brainwashing", whatever that is. No need. There is nothing easier than getting most people to believe in what they would already like to be true (especially with billions of confiscated dollars).The rest is taken care of with bread and circuses and soma.

  Regarding your attempt to say I'm the indoctrinated one here, and setting aside the "cui bono" I had suggested (and you ignored, as you must to retain your comforting world-view), here's what I have on you: two main things, 1. I know *both* sides, and *far* more about *both* sides than you (sorry); and 2. what I'm pretty sure is true doesn't really please me too much, whereas your smug, *unfounded* dismissivness in your first post and humorously unfounded self-confidence since then is a clear sign of where you come from. Even many ostensibly on my side are here for the same reason you are: the joy of shooting off their mouths and in thinking they're very smart and are defeating others in verbal battle. It's mostly Americans here after all; everything's fantasy land and play time. I'm not playing, you are going down, you're taking me with you, and my only hope here is that youngsters see the mental bankruptcy of statists of whom you are an excellent example. Good day.

  Published: October 21, 2009 3:11 PM

• mpolzkill

  Wait, one more angle to try to put a little reality into your three brains just occurred to me:

  The State wants nothing from you but your lives and labors and now since we serfs aren't falling for the "Divine Right of Kings" any longer, your consent under "Democracy" (and they're not all "evil", they also might want your thanks. Like you, most of them are just ignoramuses; they really think they're helping us poor, little dirty urchins). Once you give that to them, they have no need for your opinions. You never have and never will have any effect on their policies unless they can figure out how to make what you want work for them. As these things they do almost always end in decay or disaster, I'm a fourth serf here demonstrating your delusion so that hopefully very young serfs will not continue down the path you're taking us with your mindless consent.

  Published: October 21, 2009 3:34 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  would it not seem more practical to try and fix the devil we know while we can vs. just throwing in the towel and hiding out in Montana waiting for the end of civilization to come?
  
  Well, actually, the most practical thing to do is to simply go along with the prevailing currents. But that means going down with the ship and hoping it doesn't sink too fast. Failing that, it's better to do what's necessary to get by, but otherwise not to draw too much attention to yourself. After all, as you yourself point out, we're very much a small minority subject to the whims of the majority. If you want to try to make serious changes to the government, then you better be building a large and powerful coalition of people who want the same thing you want. Or hope for some kind of miracle. Otherwise, what little change you accomplish will be drowned by the rest of the current.
  
  The best changes will be the most fundamental ones. As an anarchist, I think that a clear understanding of the nature of government is going to its most fundamental and essential roots, and government is essentially a fundamentally immoral organization. Getting people to understand that seems more important than futzing around with campaign finance reform, the Fair tax, the Cash for Clunkers program, or whatever branch is thrown out to distract us from the roots.
  
  In short, working to change the social, cultural, and educational influences and biases in our society is likely to have a longer, more lasting impact on the political system than say, merely voting or even running for office (which I've done 2 times, btw). This is a far cry from hiding out in Montana and waiting for the end to come, though.
  
  

  Published: October 21, 2009 3:47 PM

• Peter

  Anthony: “All that is necessary for anarchism to "work" is that enough of us, not "everyone,"

  OK, I’ll accept that it just takes a majority.

  Anthony didn't say "majority", he said "enough". 10% might well be enough, but is far from a majority.

  Published: October 21, 2009 7:54 PM

• Peter

  Ok. So we, as two individuals, have a dispute. We need a third party judge. However, I don't agree on the judge you pick and punch you in the face, ending the dispute. Or I secretly hand over some money to the judge to rule in my favor. Now what? :)

  Well, at worst, we're no worse off than under a state, so what's your point?

  Maybe then use force to coerce the majority into getting rid of their government? O wait, that's not allowed either.

  Why not?

  Published: October 21, 2009 8:00 PM

• Peter

  If party A damages party B's property but party A and his/her family and friends happen to own half the town including the local banks and arbitration companies then how would party B's interest be served any better, or even as well, than in the current government run system?

  In the current government-run system, party A and his/her family and friends own the whole town...how is party B's interest served, again? See the recent article about the farmer who wanted to grow enough grain to feed his chickens!

  Published: October 21, 2009 8:05 PM

• Peter

  (in the thousands of free democratic elections that have been held so far in recent history in countries all over the world).

  Thousands? There aren't that many democratic countries, and what there are have only been that way for less than 200 years...with elections every 3 or 4 years, that leaves room for a few hundred democratic elections of governments (and none of them free) worldwide, at most!

  Published: October 21, 2009 8:14 PM

• Peter

  There were some shooting star anarchies in isolated places that flamed out. Yes, the US was closer to anarchy than we are today. It was minarchic. And guess why? Because of their religious beliefs. That should ruin your day.

  Because they were deists (atheists in drag)? I'd think that would ruin your day :)

  Published: October 21, 2009 8:17 PM

• Zorg

  Some thoughts on some of these comments:

  I think people are just confused by the word "anarchy." The questions that are thrown out have been dealt with over and over again. As for people who say, "What's to prevent A from ignoring the arbiter's ruling to pay damages to B," (and similar questions), they seem to forget what society is. I mean, good luck not paying judgments or going around punching people in the face in a free society based on property rights! You'd be a fool to clash so brazenly with the norms of the society you live in. It isn't "self-discipline" as much as it is self-preservation.

  Once ANY type of society is organized, the social pressure on the individual to conform is enormous. If the only institution of order around you is anarchic, you will do what you can to succeed and get along in that society just as you do under tyrannical states.

  These types of questions miss the mark in that they imagine "anarchy" to mean the free-for-all looting and rioting they see on tv when state "order" breaks down for a spell. But what anarchists propose is merely a different kind of order - a voluntary one. Once voluntary institutions are allowed to grow and evolve, they become stronger and more stable because they gain legitimacy through the real consent of free-thinking individuals (not the phony "consent" of democracy).

  So there will be order, one way or another, of one kind or another. And if freedom takes hold and people get a taste for it, you wouldn't want to be that guy in all of the hypotheticals who decides he won't resolve conflicts peacefully and in an orderly way because he's somehow in an anarchy-of-one and doesn't have to concern himself with what everyone else expects of him.

  The war against liberty that the state carries out is NOT the prevention of cartoon anarchy - the riots and so forth. It is, rather, the concerted effort to maintain total control of society. The state is not afraid of the kind of "anarchy" you see in riots and violent protests and such. They are afraid of any societal ORDER which they do not control.

  So imagining anarchy is just imagining more and more liberty in society. As long as people are not prevented (this is all the state does) from acting in their own best interest, they will create all kinds of arrangements for their economic and social well-being. The state merely forbids people from acting how they would normally act if they were free to do so. That's the purpose of the thousands and thousands of "laws" out there. And to think that people want chaos and disorder, or that they will stand for it long, is just absurd.

  I don't think it takes a majority or even a large minority of anarchists to change society for the better, although it does take a certain number. My pet theory is that all it takes is enough people engaging in civil disobedience to give cover to the rest. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if enough people refused to pay the IRS, for example, the system would collapse? It's tricky, but if things continue to get worse and worse, the tipping point could come when enough people just flat out refuse to fill out forms and send in checks anymore.

  If, at such a point, the state turns to outright violence against millions of these protesters, that will only de-legitimize it further. And if they realize this and thus refrain from violence, they will have lost a tremendous amount of power. This is how a massive secession might occur. And at such moments in history, there is ample opportunity for people to form alternative institutions. If there is
  any hint that gov'ts struggling for legitimacy have toned down their threats of violence and back away from it, you could see a massive shift as people start taking charge of their own lives and are emboldened to start all kinds of new businesses and social institutions.

  We have the seeds of what we need right now. We have private property in land (mostly-sorta-kinda anyway), the idea of free enterprise, the heritage of much freer early US, advanced technology, etc.
  Even if all we get in the first major shift after the collapse of the USSA is 50 states which are less
  threatening than the federal monster, we will have made progress.

  So if we can imagine enough of "the people" resisting tyranny, asserting their property rights, forming their own institutions at a moment in time when the opportunity for such is ripe, then that's "anarchy", that's the drive toward liberty which, if it can be sustained for a time, can fundamentally change the way people view society even if they never heard of anarchy and never understood it and never wanted it.
  

  Published: October 21, 2009 8:19 PM

• Mike C.

  Mpolzkill said, "The things on here from the three of you are so deeply wrong, so off-base, that there is no way to start with you. You are identifying the State with civilization for one thing; *more* of your state training. I've had enough for one day. I'm sure someone else will take on the hopeless task here. Really, almost everyone over the age of 21 who has not been mentally emancipated yet will most probably stay that way."

  Friend, I never asked that you put yourself to any great trouble for my sake and I didn't see the others here begging either. If you do not care to answer questions or explain the anarchic point of view then please do not concern yourself to the point that you feel frustration or the need to belittle others.

  I reread my own prior comment and if my own Montana or other remarks seemed coarsely put then I apologize, I am not here to be combative and I am only looking for a better understanding of what is the best and most practical political system for humanity.

  -------

  Michael A. Clem, thanks for the response. I agree with you, supporting the current parties is a complete waste of time and grass roots movements and education are what will ultimately lead to any long term and lasting change.

  I think we are too far down the path to socialism in this country and that even putting the most conservative of republicans back into office at this point would only amount to putting a Band-Aid on a gaping gangrene wound. Most of the conservatives yelling about Obama today have simply become war mad and they too blinded by their own progressive busybody welfare tendencies and insecurities to really change anything. The republicans sat in DC on their lazy derrieres for years and they grew government like there was no tomorrow, they opened the door to this fiasco and now they are simply pissed that the music might stop while they happen to be at a political disadvantage.

  The Beck’s, Hannity’s Limbaugh’s and Levin’s all sound great compared to the crazies on the left but when all it really amounts to is lip service and putting more half baked right leaning socialist back into DC again then what’s the real difference.

  Unless someone knows where we can find about a thousand Ron Paul’s in a hurry then I think we are very close to the point where it is wisest to keep our head’s low and our powder dry.
  

  Published: October 21, 2009 8:53 PM

• Mike C.

  Peter said, “In the current government-run system, party A and his/her family and friends own the whole town...how is party B's interest served, again? See the recent article about the farmer who wanted to grow enough grain to feed his chickens!”

  I fail to see what the modern government’s abuse of Joseph Blattner has to do with my question. I understand that we have an unconstitutional abusive government today but let’s stick to apples to apples comparisons here.

  What would be the advantage or difference in small constitutionally contracted government protecting its citizen’s rights vs. the justice that individuals could expect within the anarchist framework? What is there that would prevent an anarchist system from becoming just as abusive in the end?

  Published: October 21, 2009 9:15 PM

• Gil

  "Well, at worst, we're no worse off than under a state, so what's your point?" - Peter.

  How many times do trials get hijacked like that in ordinary life? Would 'paying under the table' be necessarily wrong in Anarchtopia? (If blackmailing isn't wrong then using your own money to get a private arbitrator to see things your way is all good?) However, yes a statist organisation is better than a private arbitrator - the definition of a crime is defined by fixed locations called jurisdictions, people accused of a crime can be held against their will until they go to trial or have a deposit held until the trial, people can be forced to stand trial, people can be forced to testify, people aren't allowed to lie under oath and, of course, people have to abide by the decision of the judge and have to serve the sentence while their lawyers consider if they can appeal. Not to mention people can't be tried for the same crime twice in most countries.

  Published: October 21, 2009 9:19 PM

• Gil

  "In a free world, if you were screwed by someone who then refuses arbitration, stop doing business with them and then seek out his other victims in helping to warn his future ones."

  Watch out mpolz's about! What's stopping you from refusing to deal with someone else now and telling everyone you know about him? What if you threaten to trash his reputation and his counter-threatens to the tune of "if you rubbish me around town and cause my business to go under then I'll bury you as I will have nothing to lose"?

  Besides what's make you think everyone in Anarchotopia will have their own private piece of land in which they will have full sovereign ownership and rights?

  Oh yeah, "they're brainwashed"? I think you meant to say "they have a false conciousness".

  And your hardcore suggestion: do nothing and hope things will change in your favour one day! You sound like a nerdy dweeb hoping the good-looking cheerleader types will one day stop loving the big bad burly guys and find you and your chess club friends uber-sexy.

  Published: October 21, 2009 9:29 PM

• mpolzkill

  Mike: "to the point that you feel frustration"

  It's just that it isn't a parlor game here, Mike. It doesn't feel frustrating, it is frustrating that we are at the mercy of tens of millions of "archists" who seemingly can't grasp the simplest facts.

  Published: October 21, 2009 10:10 PM

• Jay Lakner

  Mike C wrote:
  **********
  Or if party A happens to murder party B on party A’s property, or on uninhabited desert property, then what mechanism would there be for investigating or even trying party A for such a murder? If there is no private entity with any real interest in party B, that has the real teeth to truly enforce final decisions, then how would party B have any meaningful physical protection within such an environment?
  **********

  I might be able to address this point.
  I'm guessing that private protection agencies would have it built into contract with their customers that they must investigate and prosecute in the advent of the customer's murder.
  Agencies that simply refused to thoroughly investigate the murder of their clients would gain a bad reputation and go out of business.

  Published: October 21, 2009 11:12 PM

• Matt

  Look, let's skip the logical reasoning exercises as that doesn't seem to ring a bell and just stick to the facts. The countries in the world with the wealthiest, most developed and happy (well being) people are the richer, democratic countries who have a decent mix of free-market, free speech, a democratic elected government and some socialized system to take care of common needs of the people.

  In a country like I live in (EU) the vast majority of people ARE happy, rich enough to live a good live and hard working to improve things that are not good enough yet. Saying that all those people are not happy with the current system but instead have somehow be brainwashed to believe they are is ridiculous.

  As soon as you are in a group that's big enough, you need to delegate some tasks to certain people. Like building roads. If there's no democratic elected government to do that, who is going to? Exonn Mobile? How will it get the trillions of dollars to build those roads? Ask people to donate voluntarily? LOL. Who is going to build an army to defend the countries border? Blackwater? Who is going to pay and control Blackwater?

  If you really have such a problem with any rules put in placed by the majority of people, I guess the only solution is to migrate to some place where there's no one else around and you can live your free live on your own, not bothered by anyone else.
  

  Published: October 22, 2009 12:46 AM

• Gil

  Mike C wrote:
  **********
  Or if party A happens to murder party B on party A’s property, or on uninhabited desert property, then what mechanism would there be for investigating or even trying party A for such a murder? If there is no private entity with any real interest in party B, that has the real teeth to truly enforce final decisions, then how would party B have any meaningful physical protection within such an environment?
  **********

  I might be able to address this point:

  B's family will call up PDA B to question A when A feels the heat he calls up PDA A. Since both PDAs are paid to protect their respective customers, PDA B tells PDA A they want to force punishment and restitution onto A but PDA A stand their ground with A. PDA A threatens PDA B that if they dare to set foot onto A's private property there's going to be a shootout. PDA B don't want start a PDA war because they value their lives considerably more than B's family so they stand around doing nothing, look at B's family, shrug their shoulders saying "now what?" B's family and PDA B turn around for home to have a funeral for B.

  After the word travels out over the conflict between PDA A and PDA B - PDA B suffers loss of customers and income because they appeared to be weak and helpless whilst PDA A attracts new customers because they did what they were paid to do - protect their customers from outsiders.

  Published: October 22, 2009 1:26 AM

• Jay Lakner

  Gil do you really think a private protection agency will attract more customers by protecting potential murderers?

  I, for one, would not sign up to an agency which has been known to use strong-arm protection to prevent investigation of potential murderers.
  Such an agency would have a reputation of having criminals as clients and I certainly would not want the rest of society to think I am also a criminal.

  Once an agency gains such a reputation, I'm pretty sure it would go broke and not be able to pay their employees - if it had any employees left. (Who would work for them?)

  You are describing a mafia-style organisation. I do not believe it could survive in a free society. The family could simply sign up to protection agencies B, C, D, E, F, G and H all at once. Can agency A bribe all of them? Is agency A going to take them all on at once in a violent confrontation?
  Is it beneficial to these protection agencies to even engage in physical confrontations?

  Do you even think it's possible for a mafia-style organisation to get as wealthy and as powerful as a legitimate peaceful protection agency?
  Are 75% of the population criminals in your eyes and therefore likely to sign up with criminal protection agencies rather than peaceful ones?

  I don't think you've fully thought this through.

  Published: October 22, 2009 4:11 AM

• mpolzkill

  "Blackwater? Who is going to [1] pay and [2] control Blackwater?"

  LOL, indeed. 1. Someone other than you and me, as we are today. 2. They would probably go bankrupt without said money they've stolen and keep stealing from us. Imagining that say 15% of the country grew up overnight and dismantled D.C. and thus corporatism, I don't know what we'd decide to do with war criminals like the gang at Blackwater. I've always fantasized about Dick Cheney and W. doing hard labor in a Guatemala banana plantation. Only one thing between me and this dream: 300,000,000 American ignoramuses like you.

  - - - - - - - -

  Jay says,

  "I don't think you've fully thought this through."

  That's what we've got here, and the millions more like that all have as equal a say as the handful that have thought it through in a "Democracy". The even smaller handful who have thought it through and get badges and titles (who are almost always motivated by lust for power and/or glory) always mop up under these conditions.

  - - - - - - - - -

  It's all so absurd: a complete disaster coming down on our heads, and the clowns who support it get to make fun of their own speculations and chimeras that *they* place in the mouths of those who oppose *all* crime. Bah!

  Published: October 22, 2009 7:30 AM

• Gil

  "Gil do you really think a private protection agency will attract more customers by protecting potential murderers?" - J. Lacker

  Yes absolutely! That's what they would get paid for - to defend their clients' interests! After all defence lawyers have to duty to protect their client from the onslaughts of prosecuting lawyers. 'Potential' is not the same as 'definitely'. Besides, defence lawyers get business uptake when they get successful clients off the charges.

  On the other hand, a PDA officer can't just go onto someone's else private property with inpunity interrogating and detaining people and searching for evidence. Even police officers need search warrants. The real world of the helplessness PDAs would be akin to a criminal who has left the country and the other country has no intentions of extraditing the accused (e.g. Ronald Biggs).

  Suppose if PDA B tackle and cart away A away? Suppose A is able to call PDA A to rescue him? Can PDA A claim retaliatory force to retrieve A? Could a someone from PDA A claim that PDA B were going subject A to a kangaroo court and lynch him? Could an outright PDA war break out because both claim to right to being 'in the right'?

  "Are 75% of the population criminals in your eyes and therefore likely to sign up with criminal protection agencies rather than peaceful ones?"

  The obvious problem that it would impossible claim a PDA was criminal as there are no laws anyway. Instead I would argue that micro-monarchies where everyone owns their own parcel of land isn't going to happen. Private city-states are the most likely outcomes and the council of private landowners have monopoly jurisdiction and get to make the laws ("their land, their rules") and everyone else (probably around 80% of the population) would find the most agreeable private town and settle there, pay rent and follow the rules. Such private towns would have no emigration restrictions (except having the person pay off certain outstanding debts maybe) and the private towns which were most found the best formula for keeping tenants staying becomes the model for other struggling private towns until an equilibrium was reaches where all towns were roughly the same. Surprise, surprise if the best formula turns out to be virtually the same as a minimalist, laissez-faire nation-state except on a smaller scale.

  Published: October 22, 2009 7:32 AM

• Mike C.

  Jay, I tend to agree with you about the mafia, as we know it, not being able to gain a huge foothold in an anarchic community, however, I could certainly envision the possibility of one trick pony towns or private gated communities within larger cities that might encircle the wagons, and be less than cooperative, to protect their own.

  My original question, however, had more to do with loner type individuals who might be down on their luck, runaways, or people who do not necessarily have families that would miss them. If someone found a dead body in a ditch, who is even responsible for identifying them, figuring out where they are from in the first place, or how they even died? Then assuming that somehow someway party X was found guilty of the crime, who would ultimately be responsible for all the cost involved of jailing them, providing a fair trail, who would have any real authority to punish them anyway and would they simply hang them out back at xyz security agency or be required to house and feed them for the rest of their natural life?

  …Just the things I think about when we talk of mini-archy vs. anarchy.
  

  Published: October 22, 2009 8:06 AM

• fundamentalist

  Peter: “Because they were deists (atheists in drag)?”

  You have fallen prey to socialist propaganda. Very few were deists. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were deists. I don’t know of any others among the founders. The rest were devout believers.

  Zorg: “If, at such a point, the state turns to outright violence against millions of these protesters, that will only de-legitimize it further.”

  I wish this were true but history doesn’t bear it out. Civil disobedience only works against democracies. It worked for Ghandi because he faced Great Britain and politicians with some morals. Civil disobedience never worked agaisnt any of the major empires, such as Rome or the Ottomans. And it didn’t work against the USSR or China or North Korea or North Vietnam. It hasn’t worked in Iran. If the leadership is willing to kill as many people as necessary to retain control, they will retain control. History has proven it.

  Still, for that reason it might work in the US since politicians have a few scruples left, though not many. I’m skeptical, though, because both Republicans and Democrats are socialists to the core and will take an threat to state power very seriously.

  Mike C. “I think we are too far down the path to socialism in this country and that even putting the most conservative of republicans back into office at this point would only amount to putting a Band-Aid on a gaping gangrene wound.”

  I agree. I think we have to have more socialism in the country, and suffer the consequences, before a majority of Americans will become interested in freedom. I quit listening to “conservative” talk shows such as Limbaugh during the last Bush term because it was clear to me that they were promoting the Republican party and not conservativism, let alone libertarianism. Bush advanced socialism in ways that Democrats could only dream about.

  Matt: “The countries in the world with the wealthiest, most developed and happy (well being) people are the richer, democratic countries who have a decent mix of free-market, free speech, a democratic elected government and some socialized system to take care of common needs of the people.”

  You’re right to be skeptical of abstract ideas that promise to create a utopia, but you also need to consider what might have been. Had Europe and the US enjoyed more freedom, what might the benefit have not only to us but to the rest of the world? I think it would have been great. For example, a lot of work on the optimum tax suggests that total taxation should be around 25%, about half what it is in the US. At that tax level, researchers find that per capita gdp would have grown twice as fast. That’s new wealth creation, not taking it from someone else. And that wealth wouldn’t stay in the US or Europe, it would spread throughout the world and enrich poorer countries.

  Matt: “As soon as you are in a group that's big enough, you need to delegate some tasks to certain people. Like building roads.”

  Roads were built by private enterprise in the early days of our nation and they worked very well. In the US today, we have too many roads. We waste an enormous amount of wealth on unnecessary roads. By favoring roads over rail transportation, we killed passenger rail, the most efficient form of travel that exists. Several people have worked out ways to privatize road construction that could work very well.

  Matt: “Who is going to build an army to defend the countries border?”

  That’s more of a problem. We don’t have many examples of private armies in history. You might consider Mao’s Red Army as one that defeated a more powerful state. Our history during the Revolutionary war is not encouraging. The people refused to fund Washington’s army and had it not been for the state funding from France and the Dutch, we would have lost the war. One of the saddest stories from the war for independence was when Washington executed leaders of a rebellion who intended to march on Philadelphia and hold politicians for ransom because those politicians refused to buy food and clothing for the soldiers.
  

  Published: October 22, 2009 9:04 AM

• Mike C.

  Matt said, "Look, let's skip the logical reasoning exercises as that doesn't seem to ring a bell and just stick to the facts. The countries in the world with the wealthiest, most developed and happy (well being) people are the richer, democratic countries who have a decent mix of free-market, free speech, a democratic elected government and some socialized system to take care of common needs of the people.

  In a country like I live in (EU) the vast majority of people ARE happy, rich enough to live a good live and hard working to improve things that are not good enough yet. Saying that all those people are not happy with the current system but instead have somehow be brainwashed to believe they are is ridiculous."

  Obviously, the reason and logic that that brought you out of the dark ages, and gave you the freedom to express yourself thru your own productive efforts doesn't mean much to you. The fact that you accept your bribe, as a happy content camper; within a half prison, shows a real lack of thought and appreciation for what you do have, and the people who fought and paid in blood to show you that you have the right, not the state sanctioned privilege, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… but then living in the EU you might not have heard of that yet.

  The fact that you so easily accept corruption as the norm and think all should be ok with that??? I wouldn't necessarily call it outright brainwashing, I would simply say that many get tired, give up, and become acclimated to their cages more easily than others.
  

  Published: October 22, 2009 9:19 AM

• Gil

  "I would simply say that many get tired, give up, and become acclimated to their cages more easily than others." - Mike C.

  Or they'd rather live in a working system than throw their lives away on some ideal they don't believe in. To people living in any nation-state is no better than North Korea is just being silly.

  Published: October 22, 2009 9:36 AM

• Mike C.

  Peter: “Because they were deists (atheists in drag)?”

  Peter is obviously confused about what Deism is in the first place. Deist didn't claim that God didn't exist; they simply denied the claims of the Orthodox Church and thought that supernatural revelation was a bunch of worthless twaddle. However they were still highly moral men from a natural law perspective and they still accepted many the basic ethical tenants of Christianity. Jefferson even went to the trouble of writing his own version of the bible to express his own opinion about its wisdom
  

  Published: October 22, 2009 9:38 AM

• Mike C.

  Gil, I guess I would be considered a micro-archist, I do not believe that we can completely do away with the state -- even if I can dream of it -- but it most certainly should remain the servant of the people and not become the corrupt master as it is in most cases today.

  Published: October 22, 2009 9:45 AM

• Jay Lakner

  I wrote:
  "Gil do you really think a private protection agency will attract more customers by protecting potential murderers?"

  Gil replied:
  **********
  Yes absolutely! That's what they would get paid for - to defend their clients' interests! After all defence lawyers have to duty to protect their client from the onslaughts of prosecuting lawyers. 'Potential' is not the same as 'definitely'. Besides, defence lawyers get business uptake when they get successful clients off the charges.

  On the other hand, a PDA officer can't just go onto someone's else private property with inpunity interrogating and detaining people and searching for evidence. Even police officers need search warrants. The real world of the helplessness PDAs would be akin to a criminal who has left the country and the other country has no intentions of extraditing the accused (e.g. Ronald Biggs).

  Suppose if PDA B tackle and cart away A away? Suppose A is able to call PDA A to rescue him? Can PDA A claim retaliatory force to retrieve A? Could a someone from PDA A claim that PDA B were going subject A to a kangaroo court and lynch him? Could an outright PDA war break out because both claim to right to being 'in the right'?
  **********

  Firstly, if PDA B had strong evidence that an individual has committed murder, then the first thing they would do is contact and work with PDA A. It is in the best interest of both agencies to reach a result which is considered fair by the majority of society. After all, both PDAs are competing for the same customers.

  If PDA A refuses to cooperate, then it becomes clear to everyone that their organisation has questionable merit.
  Such actions would be damaging to the PDA as the negative publicity would drive away customers and send them broke.

  It is in the best interests of both PDAs to reach a peaceful solution. Therefore, it seems clear to me that both PDAs would work together to best uncover the truth. Once an arbiter has been decided upon, PDA A would act as defense in the case while PDA B the prosecution.

  I'm sorry Gil but I can't accept your version of how events would unfold. No PDA in their right mind would barge onto another's property unless they had a very strong reason to do so. (immediate threat)
  PDAs who barged onto private property without a very good reason would lose customers (and therefore income) and may also find themselves open to being prosecuted by the PDA of the property owner.

  
  **********
  The obvious problem that it would impossible claim a PDA was criminal as there are no laws anyway.
  **********

  By criminal I meant "shady reputation".
  But yes there can also be criminal PDAs. If a criminal PDA violates your rights, then your PDA has an obligation to seek damages from the criminal PDA.

  
  **********
  Instead I would argue that micro-monarchies where everyone owns their own parcel of land isn't going to happen. Private city-states are the most likely outcomes and the council of private landowners have monopoly jurisdiction and get to make the laws ("their land, their rules") and everyone else (probably around 80% of the population) would find the most agreeable private town and settle there, pay rent and follow the rules. Such private towns would have no emigration restrictions (except having the person pay off certain outstanding debts maybe) and the private towns which were most found the best formula for keeping tenants staying becomes the model for other struggling private towns until an equilibrium was reaches where all towns were roughly the same. Surprise, surprise if the best formula turns out to be virtually the same as a minimalist, laissez-faire nation-state except on a smaller scale.
  **********

  Yes that's quite possible. Society could evolve in this way. Since there is no monopoly of force, this would constite one possible anarchic scenario.
  What you have described is not a minimalist government as you believe, but in fact a rental contract between the tenants and the land-owners.

  Well done Gil, you have discovered yet another possible reason why anarchy could work. :)
  

  Published: October 22, 2009 11:09 AM

• Jay Lakner

  Mike C wrote:
  **********
  My original question, however, had more to do with loner type individuals who might be down on their luck, runaways, or people who do not necessarily have families that would miss them.
  **********

  If the individual in question had not signed up with a protection agency, then it means they have chosen to take their chances. They have chosen to take the risk that nothing unfortunate will happen to them. It's like someone who doesn't buy car insurance and then smashes up their car. They took the risk and it didn't pay off.

  I could imagine possibilities arising where individuals have the option of contracting with, for example, the media or 'protection agency watch groups' to make sure that, in the event of their untimely death, any contracts they have with protection agencies are fulfilled. In this way, a protection agency which does not meet its contractual obligations will gain bad publicity risk losing business.
  Or another possibility is that in their "last will and testament", an individual gives the rights to their "in case of death" contract to a third party. This third party can rightfully claim damages against a protection agency which doesn't fulfill its "in case of death" contracts.
  Their are tons of free-market possibilities. We can't really know what will actually eventuate until we try it.

  **********
  If someone found a dead body in a ditch, who is even responsible for identifying them, figuring out where they are from in the first place, or how they even died?
  **********

  Whoever owns the ditch would contact their protection agency and they will deal with the matter. I'm certain this service would be part of the contract when you sign up. Either that or your insurance company will deal with it - letting a murderer roam around in the area is not in the best interests of the organisation insuring your life!
  I imagine that most insurance companies would also become protection agencies since both go hand in hand.

  
  **********
  Then assuming that somehow someway party X was found guilty of the crime, who would ultimately be responsible for all the cost involved of jailing them, providing a fair trail, who would have any real authority to punish them anyway and would they simply hang them out back at xyz security agency or be required to house and feed them for the rest of their natural life?
  **********

  Jailing criminals would likely fall under the contract you have with your protection/insurance agency. It's also possible that a separate organisation is paid to do this by the protection/insurance agencies.
  Jailing would only occur in extreme circumstances as all parties involved wish for an economic solution.
  Protection agencies will be very reluctant to take business from known repeat-offenders of crimes. Such customers could continually cost them money. Career criminals will find they cannot sign up for protection anywhere and are at the mercy of other criminals.

  Where jail is appropriate, protection/insurance agencies will likely pay the costs. It is not in the best interests of the organisations insuring your life and property to have arsonists, rapists and murderers running around free.

  It's possible they'll have incentive systems in place to allow early release of criminals if they behave themselves and do productive work. It's entirely conceivable that most prisoners will pay for their own incarceration through the wealth they generate with productive labor inside the jail. (Some could sew blankets, others clean the prison, others do the cooking, others making clothes/toys/furniture, etc, etc, etc)
  I fail to see why most wouldn't cooperate if given the prospect of halving or even quartering their sentence.

  The death penalty may also exist in extreme cases but only if there is overwhelming public support for it.

  
  I should add that I'm not trying to say what absolutely will happen. I'm only giving you possible scenarios of what could happen. That's all I need to do to demonstrate that your arguments against anarchy are not any sort of proof that it can't work.

  Published: October 22, 2009 12:12 PM

• Zorg

  I think the concept of competing jurisdictions is a bit too much for most people to take. Perhaps a softer semi-anarchy is a better transition to truly opening up the market for justice all the way. You can do that with co-op towns and cities. You can get rid of politics and still retain the "democratic" vibe by having each property owner be a stockholder in the corporation of the city rather than the useless title of "citizen" (tax-slave). You can have electric and other utility co-ops for the members/stockholders. The members could own their local roads. This way the most immediate concerns people have about where they live and the services they need are taken care of, but it's de-politicized and turned into an economic joint venture. You move it into the economic realm where the members have actual control of the costs of the local services rather than having to submit to the vagaries of elective politics.

  And since people fear change and the unknown, it's probably best to put serious plans out there so that things are worked out in advance and people know what the direction is and what the goal is and who is who and what is what. Otherwise they freak out hearing anarchists saying, "Don't worry, it'll all work out."

  It may have to start politically as part of a secessionist self-rule movement, I don't know, but once the ghost of politics is exorcised what you have is a cooperative venture and self-rule. The co-op utilities run at a small margin as non-profits since the consumers of the product are the owners.
  And then of course you send delegates and vote for people to run the co-ops. The corporation can hire an outside security agency and have it apply the corporate rules of justice in that jurisdiction, and then relate to other jurisdictions the way towns, cities, counties, and states do now. And what if the "state" was a co-op of the smaller co-ops?

  It's a bit of a lefty concept because it's "democratic" but also right-ish because it's economically based in a corporation. In any case, co-ops have been proven to work, and they do seem to obviate the perceived need for political rule as well as big business since everyone simply becomes part owner of the city corporation and pays for services as consumers of those services in a more honest and direct way than through taxation.

  What to do with dissenters? There's the rub (unless you start a new community of willing participants). That's why I said it may have to be political. It may be seen as a great way to reform politics, and then once things are running smoothly, people will wonder what the need for politics is since all the property owners have simply formed a corporation which serves their local societal needs. And renters would be sharing the property owners' rights and duties when they choose to live there.

  It's an interesting idea to me because people will see that they are simply paying for the services they need and use, and that they are all *owners*
  of this venture together. As consumer co-ops, the services aren't tax-based, and that to me is revolutionary. Now, a dissenter could opt out of the utilities if they just spend their own money for wells, solar power, whatever. They could not opt out of the legal system though, unless things were working so well down the line that people lost their fear of competing justice systems. In that case, a resident might have to sign a contract with the city saying they will be obliged to meet minimum requirements for a justice agency, insurance, etc. if they choose to buy a house in that locale and not join the co-op.

  Perhaps Joe moves from another co-op city which the locals are content with and don't force him to join theirs but make an agreement with his justice provider on how any cases involving him will be handled. And that of course is the beginning of a fuller anarchy. It's just that it's easier for people to deal with now that things are established and working well enough not to scare people to death
  with the idea of real liberty and real solid ways of enforcing contracts.

  And then people can pick the style of management they like best if other cities and towns and counties follow the model. It may be that competition is not necessary on the local level for routine services since co-ops are efficient at providing quality service to their consumers because their consumers are also their owners! : )

  It's interesting. I wonder how far this can be pushed under present state laws. I think an excellent pilot project would be to establish just one town somewhere where people had abolished property taxes through this or other plans. That place would be Mecca!

  Published: October 22, 2009 1:51 PM

• Gil

  "Yes that's quite possible. Society could evolve in this way. Since there is no monopoly of force, this would constite one possible anarchic scenario.
  What you have described is not a minimalist government as you believe, but in fact a rental contract between the tenants and the land-owners." - J. Lackner.

  The private city-states would fail the anarchist test because there are no competing, floating, overlapping jurisdictions. The private council of a private city-state claims a monopoly of force over the city and forbids competition for law & order. Thus this would be a state, albeit a private one.

  Published: October 22, 2009 9:37 PM

• Peter

  Peter is obviously confused about what Deism is in the first place. Deist didn't claim that God didn't exist;

  I didn't say they did. I said "atheists in drag", not just "atheists", for a reason. They dressed up as non-atheists :)

  they simply denied the claims of the Orthodox Church and thought that supernatural revelation was a bunch of worthless twaddle. However they were still highly moral men from a natural law perspective

  As atheists generally are.

  and they still accepted many the basic ethical tenants of Christianity.

  That's "tenets"—tenants are the people who rent your property :)

  (There are people today who call themselves "Christian atheists" -- see "Atheists for Jesus")

  Jefferson even went to the trouble of writing his own version of the bible to express his own opinion about its wisdom

  Indeed; the Jefferson bible is about as close to atheist as you can get. (Through, contra fundamentalist above, there's no evidence that Jefferson considered himself a deist...)

  Published: October 22, 2009 11:09 PM

• matt

  Just out of curiosity: how are the problems of limited (natural) resources and environmental problems solved? Are we just going to ask everybody to voluntarily not use too much? Are we going to sue each other for burning fossil fuel or dumping waste? What or who is going to check what people do in this area? Without any rules or rule keepers any person or company can just go out and do whatever he feels like doing, using any last resource there is, dumping toxic waste in the ocean, etc

  Published: October 23, 2009 3:32 AM

• Jay Lakner

  **********
  The private city-states would fail the anarchist test because there are no competing, floating, overlapping jurisdictions. The private council of a private city-state claims a monopoly of force over the city and forbids competition for law & order. Thus this would be a state, albeit a private one.
  **********

  People can voluntarily leave at any stage and no longer have to accept the those laws.
  Residents obey those laws as part of their voluntary contract to live their lives on another person's property.
  Therefore, once they step off that private land, they are no longer bound by the laws of the land's owner.
  The city-state, as you call it, is simply an organisation that people may or may not choose to be a part of.
  It can therefore simply be considered to be nothing more than a complex organisation in an anarchic society.

  Published: October 23, 2009 5:06 AM

• Gil

  "People can voluntarily leave at any stage and no longer have to accept the those laws." - J. Lakner

  However that's little different from nation-states - different countries have different laws and many people migrate from one to another. It's come full circle to the "love it or leave it" argument.

  Published: October 23, 2009 6:06 AM

• Jay Lakner

  
  The difference, Gil, is private ownership of the land. A nation-state claims jurisdiction over an area but doesn't own the land.

  Published: October 23, 2009 6:49 AM

• fundamentalist

  matt: "how are the problems of limited (natural) resources and environmental problems solved?"

  Actually, FEE had a good article a couple of years ago about how the court system had handled environmental problems before the creation of the EPA. For example, land owners were able to sue polluters of rivers for actual damages. It was working quite well at the time. The real environmental problems are caused by public ownership of land. Private owners always care about their environment and will fight to protect it in court if the state lets them. However, the EPA forced all of those law suits out of courts and into the EPA's bowels.

  Published: October 23, 2009 8:22 AM

• matt

  @fundamentalist: actually I don't mean the little stuff like my neighbor polluting a small river which goes over my piece of land. I mean the big national and global issues.
  If we would live in a world with only a few hundred million inhabitants, living their live primitively on their own little piece of land I could see that - in theory - small pollution issues could be solved by some "court".

  However, we don't live in the middle ages anymore. There's 6 billion people on this planet, soon around 9 billion. Millions of gigantic private corporations. Every one of them, each individual and each company will use up limited resources and pollute the environment. If there are no agreements up front (and rules) this will continue until every last resource is used and the world is destroyed. This is not some treehuggers' prediction but a mathematical fact if you look at the world population, growth of economy and principles of the capitalistic system. Then you finally have your Utopian anarchy, however, no world to live on anymore ...

  Published: October 23, 2009 10:52 AM