Should We Love or Loathe the Mafia?
Is the Mafia like a state that uses violence to enforce its agenda? Or is it more like a private business that specializes in the market provision of security? Robert Murphy reviews a book on the topic by Diego Gambetta and concludes that the author has everything right except the fundamental analytics concerning what distinguishes public and private provision. The violence of the black market would largely vanish if its operations were normalized within a market setting. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (46)
If anybody is interested in the history of the Sicilian Mafia I would highly recommend John Dickie's "Cosa Nostra: A History of the Sicilian Mafia". I read it when I was on holiday and it's quite impressive.
Published: August 12, 2005 5:00 AM
I agree, of course, that Sicily is not an example of Rothbardian anarchy. This is not due to the fact that mafia 'families' thrived for years thanks to their connections with the political elite.
The main reason is that Rothbardian anarchy is a system which cannot exist, so it is not surprising that one does not find it in practice. Rothbard defines the state as an "agency which more or less successfully enforces a monopoly of coercion over a given territory". If the Italian government renounced its claim to Sicily and withdrew all its forces from there, the mafia families would simply take over and become states in the Rothbardian sense.
You cannot have competing, armed private courts over the same territory for the same reason why you cannot have competing mafia families ruling over the same territory (they are the same thing): they will fight with each other until each one rules over its own territory. What you end up with is simply a state with a different name.
Published: August 12, 2005 5:17 AM
I personally think Somali culture proves you wrong. Anarchy can work when the people take freedom seriously and are willing to defend it. The main reason why people say "it won't work" is because people in state-dominated societies are relatively docile and easily influenced.
Published: August 12, 2005 6:51 AM
How, pray, does Somali culture "prove me wrong"? Southern Somalia is divided up into areas controlled by armed gangs and guerrillas, each one of which is a state in the Rothbardian sense. It is also the most dangerous inhabited area on the entire area, making Iraq look like a children's playground.
Northern Somalia (Somaliland) is much safer but alas it does have a government responsible for law and defence, which wisely stays out of the economy.
Published: August 12, 2005 7:12 AM
As I've said elsewhere, anarchy means "absence of law or government," so unless law is established in some formal way, stateless society cannot exist in the modern world (which I do not consider Somalia a part of). And the only way I know to do so is with a Social Contract that every would-be member (other than dependents) signs, acknowledging the rights of all signatories to life, liberty, and property, promising not to violate those rights and agreeing to submit to private arbitration where violations are alleged to have occurred. With law thus established, along with the means for its enforcement, a right-makes-might system would be in place, precluding the might-makes-right (Law of the Jungle) that would prevail in a purely anarchical situation and, more to the point, prevails today in statist society.
I would add that so far as docility is concerned, members of the above society would take the Social Contract at least as seriously as people now take contracts that they have attached their names to -- a car loan, say, or a mortgage -- default being the last thing they want to do. Which is to say that with contract law already so well established in the modern world, it would not be a big step for a group of contiguous landowners (were they allowed to) to establish a stateless society -- let's call it what it would be: a free territory -- in this manner.
Published: August 12, 2005 7:25 AM
Robert,
Though I have an open mind to the idea of anarcho-capitalism I have yet been convinced that it is better than the limited government viewpoint or that it wouldn't just evolve into that anyway in some form. It seems to me that the term "state" is really a question of semantics. Let's take the example of the mafia when they were a much larger organization back in the day. To some extent they were a check on "state" power. Because they had so much influence the "state" could not just do whatever it wanted and sometimes that check involved the threat of violence. For example, maybe the police turned their heads to certain mob "activities", or maybe the "state" avoided passing certain legislation because of mob pressure, or maybe the "state" had to accept the mob's input whether it liked it or not. Isn't this an example of competing "firms"? You said, "However, there is a fundamental problem with Gambetta’s alleged dichotomy: It currently is illegal for a private agent to sell “protection� in the way Gambetta uses the term. One of the defining characteristics of the State is that it claims a monopoly on the rightful use (or delegation of the use) of physical violence within its geographical borders." I'm not sure that's completely true. It is currently legal for a private individual to use violence, deadly force if necessary, to protect himself (I guess you can say this is a delegated power). You might say that the monopolistic "state" will be the final judge of my actions and might conclude that my actions were excessive. That's true, but wouldn't the same thing happen with competing private firms? Let's say we had five major protection firms and four believed my actions were excessive and my firm, the fifth, believe they were not. Would I go to jail for excessive force because the other four private firms applied the pressure and became the final judge and essentially made my use of force illegal? What is the difference between private firms doing this or one large firm (or "state") doing this? Individuals are free to say no to the "state" today, but in most cases they will lose, but not in all cases. If you have the power of a group like the mafia, you will check the power of the "state" sometimes. I don't see how this would be any different in a world without a "state". Let's say the majority of people in a "stateless" society had a socialist mentality, would we libertarians be better off? I don't see how. For example, the majority of private protection firms would still see the demolition of a historical home by its owner as value damage to his neighbors property and would use force to stop that demolition or require that the owner pay the "damage" to his neighbors. People like to bring up the example of Somolia as evidence that anarchy does not work, but I think they miss the big point. In my opinion, it's not so much how the use of force is "organized" (anarcho-capitalism, limited government, democracy, monarchy, etc.), but the attitude of the majority of people. If the majority of people believe in libertarian principles then we will have freedom. If the majority of people believe in socialism then we will not have freedom. Whether a single "state" or a majority of protection firms (United Firms of America) impose their view of the proper use of force is mostly irrelevant and seems to be just a game of semantics with the term "state". It's the beliefs of the majority that matter. Wouldn't it be nice to have a powerful mafia in this country that believed in libertarian principles : )
Published: August 12, 2005 7:27 AM
Mark F.,
I think organization -- large Nation States, vs. many small city-States, or vs. anarcho-capitalism -- has a huge impact. Without large Nation-States, there would have been no WWI or WWII. There would have been no Holocaust. Hitler couldn't have murdered 21 million people. 61 million people wouldn't have been murdered in the USSR. 35 million people wouldn't have been murdered in China.
Published: August 12, 2005 7:48 AM
Hans Hoppe estimated the death toll of states in peace times at 170 million people during the 20th century. He mentioned this in a presentation given at the Mises university called Protection and the Market for Security. It’s hard to think of private police agencies killing so many of there customers. The fact that private police agencies would not become one state again and would not go to war with each other has in my view al ready been established in other threads namely the threads of “the possibility of private law� and “wouldn’t the warlords take over� so I won’t go in to that again. On a side note, John Dickie points out in the source mentioned by me above, that the main reason the mafia could “live� so long was because of the state and the corruption therein.
Published: August 12, 2005 8:21 AM
The problem with having lots of small states is that if each one follows a different economic/monetary policy trade across borders will be very restricted. This is the argument which Mises made in his introduction to Bureaucracy (1944):
Washington has not openly usurped any constitutional powers of the States. The equilibrium in the distribution of powers between the Federal Government and the States as established by the Constitution has been seriously disturbed because the new powers that the authorities acquired for the most part accrued to the Union and not to the States. This is not the effect of sinister machinations on the part of mysterious Washington cliques, eager to curb the States and to establish centralization. It is the consequence of the fact that the United States is an economic unit with a uniform monetary and credit system and with free mobility of commodities, capital, and men among the States. In such a country government control of business must be centralized. It would be out of the question to leave it to the individual States. If each State were free to control business according to its own plans, the unity of the domestic market would disintegrate. State control of business would be practicable only if every State were in a position to separate its territory from the rest of the nation by trade and migration barriers and an autonomous monetary and credit policy. As nobody seriously suggests breaking up the economic unity of the nation, it has been necessary to entrust the control of business to the Union. It is in the nature of a system of government control of business to aim at the utmost centralization. The autonomy of the States as guaranteed by the Constitution is realizable only under a system of free enterprise. In voting for government control of business the voters implicitly, although unwittingly, are voting for more centralization.
Published: August 12, 2005 8:25 AM
Thus the problem is goverments, small or big, having economic/monetary policies in the first place. This was the policy of the small states in Europe in the 17th and 18th century and trade flourished.
Published: August 12, 2005 8:33 AM
What would prevent private police agencies from going to war with each other? Each agency must necessarily control its own territory, otherwise conflict will break out; at which point they turn into states. Having the word "private" in their name will not prevent them from going to war with each other.
It seems to me that anarcho-capitalists are guilty of the same utopian fallacy which befell the old anarchists (Bakunin, Malatesta, etc) who believed that getting rid of government and capitalism would enable everyone to live in eternal happiness. Killing capitalists does not of course destroy capitalism: people will still need to trade their produce, new capitalists will emerge. Likewise, getting rid of governments will only result in the emergence of new forms of authority, which may be better or worse than the previous ones.
Published: August 12, 2005 8:37 AM
Bruno,
It is one of the conditions of having geographical monopolies over force that constitutes a state. Your comment that they should be geographically limited is actually suporting private defense.
Published: August 12, 2005 8:58 AM
A private police agency needs a territory just as television companies need a territory, they don’t, they just need customers. Of course a community could hire one police agency to protect there community, but that doesn’t mean the police agency owns the territory of the community, and would want to extent that territory. Of course they want more customers, but attacking the next community that’s protected by an other agency isn’t a economic way of gaining new customers. The agency with the best reputation for defending people’s property rights will get the most customers, the firm violating property rights will not. If a agency violates someone’s property rights they will be sued, and if the don’t wish to comply with the verdict, the verdict will have to be enforced by the police agencies of the people that sued the rogue agency. So it will be uneconomic and criminal to expand “territory�, and this will be the main reason why police agencies will stay in line, but there’s now reason to be ignorant and think that no agency will ever violate people’s right, because that would truly be an Utopian dream. This is just a short summary of the arguments put forward in the other threads but I hope this will help.
Published: August 12, 2005 8:59 AM
David,
I believe whether we have one or a few large "states", numerous small "states", or a "stateless" society is essentially based on the attitude of the majority (maybe not a 51% majority, but maybe say a 75% majority or more is needed). If the majority of individuals believe in libertarian principles then it would be, in my opinion, impossible for a large "state" to continue or form in the first place. If the majority believes in neo-conservatism ideas and /or socialistic ideas(this is the current case in the United States) then a large state can form and has formed. It's a question of the chicken or the egg. If the vast majority of people believe in libertarianism this will lead to decentralized small "states" or possibly private protection firms (though I would call these states too). If the majority believe in socialism this will most likely lead to nation states. But if we could somehow achieve anarcho-captialism with a society that was made up of mostly socialists it wouldn't matter. The private firms, like my town does today, would tell me I could't tear down my historical home. But even today the current monopoly government can not do anything it wants. For example. if the federal, state, or local government tried to outlaw interracial marriage today (not that they want to) the pressure from the majority would not allow it. Imagine an anarcho-capitalist society where 85% of the people are racists and the vast majority of private protection firms see interracial marriage as something that should be stopped because it violates some view of natural law or whatever rationale they may have. Would it matter that we lived in anarcho-captialism or not? I don't see much difference. The driving force behind such a stupid law is the majority view point and not the particular "organization" of force. Some states outlawed interracial marriage in the south because that was the prevailing view in society. It will probably be the same deal for gay marriage in 20 years or so. Promoting libertarian principles is the most important thing we can do to promote liberty no matter what form of "state" we currently have or believe is the best form. Yes, I do believe that competition among "states" is good for the same reason it's good for all other products and services, but the services of police, courts, and prisons seem to be unique in my view. It's okay to have private services (arbitration, private security, etc.), but ultimately, the final judge on these services should be, or will be naturally I believe, a single entity in a given territory. The smaller (to a certain point) and greater number (to a certain point) of territories we have the better for competition reasons. Dr. Walter Block likes to use the example that all countries are currently in anarchy with each other, but these countries, except somolia, have a single entity that's the final arbiter of justice in that country's territory.
Published: August 12, 2005 9:05 AM
The market optimizes efficiency, not justice or any other virtue or good (in the sense of the beatific). It provides lies efficiently as truth, ugliness as efficiently as beauty.
Only when it is harnessed to produce the true, the good, and the beautiful does it become these things.
The violence of the black market would largely vanish if its operations were normalized within a (legitimate or legal) market setting. is quite true. During the early part of the US (and British empire), there was a legitimate market for slaves, so if you don't consider the legitimacy of the transaction or the treatment of the cargo, there was very little violence.
But then you get things like the Amistad.
My problem with AnCap is that it would work fine if we could teleport all the supporters of LVMI, LRC, and a few others I could name to a deserted island that would not be bothered by the empire of the decade. Our ideas about the content of the law aren't very divergent (Nor Acadians, Icelanders, Quakers). NYC would be a problem. I would worry about defense as enough people would say "you can't compel me to defend collectively" and not volunteer even if it would be provable that individual defense would fail.
When to defend against a barbarian agressor the "security agency" might have to be 20% or more of the population putting their lives on the line, and when there is no honor in defending liberty, just what the market can provide in the pay packet which would be little, the AnCap society will end.
In one sense, I see most of the AnCap proposals like a miser who ends up starving himself to death by being homeless in the winter because he wants a slightly higher pile of gold and silver in a safe-deposit box instead of being healthy and warm.
The market, property, and liberty itself are there to serve man and to allow him to reach the heights due his dignity. He must not become their slave by making them ends in themselves. That is the same mistake those who crave power for its own sake make. That tyranny is more obvious.
And they usually do so by making the market, life, and liberty fight each other - selling liberty, using liberty to destroy life, reducing life to hedonism and materialism. This is the "culture of death". Yet many don't see that this situation is wrong in and of itself, not just because the current tyrants promote it. Removing the tyrant in such a situation won't help as the internecine conflicts between the foundations of a free society will simply regenerate a new tyrant.
Published: August 12, 2005 9:54 AM
Mark F. has the most interesting comments, this time out. Human beings are strange creatures, partly in the natural world and partly in worlds of our own creation or imaginings. Governments as we know them are to a large extent not part of the natural world, but the vastly more subjective joint efforts of human creation. Economics and natural law are attempts to reconcile the subjective mentality with the objective reality of the world.
While I would agree that we will be better off when a majority of people believe in and act in accordance with libertarian-oriented principles, the question of the organization of government is not irrelevant. Economics shows us that different sets of circumstances create different incentives, and this is as true of political organizations as it is anything else. I think that even a minimal government is going to have some incentives for abuse of rights, though to a lesser extent than a larger, more extensive government. On the other hand, an anarchist system is going to have its own incentives that help perpetuate it and disincentives for trying to recreate a state or government.
Published: August 12, 2005 9:55 AM
Maikel:
> A private police agency needs a territory just
> as television companies need a territory, they
> don’t, they just need customers.
Television companies can't fight one another with guns (they might in Mogadishu).
> Of course a community could hire one police
> agency to protect there community, but that
> doesn’t mean the police agency owns the
> territory of the community, and would want to
> extent that territory.
Assume this holds. Let's imagine I am a resident of Rothbardia and subscribe to a security agency called RonPol. One day an idiot attacks me in the street. He subscribes to another agency called JonPol. JonPol believe his story, or perhaps according to them he has committed no crime (maybe I am black and JonPol is run by the KKK). JonPol and RonPol will fight. Since they are armed soldiers rather than hairdressers or management consultants, they will fight by shooting one another with bullets.
Result: war, under a different name. War of course is wasteful and uneconomical, so in order to avoid it the agencies (armies) will divide up the territory and create boundaries (borders).
Published: August 12, 2005 10:15 AM
Michael A. Clem,
Wouldn't an anarcho-capitalist society that was made up of let's say 85% of individuals with significant socialistic leanings create disincentives too? For example, let's say that tearing down my own historical home will decrease the value of my neighbors' homes or a group of neighbors want to build a park that will increase the value of my home. If the socialistic majority believes that the decrease in value in their homes is a case of direct "damage" to their private property, where is the incentive to respect libertarian views here? The same can be said of the park. The socialistic majority might believe that the increase of value that I gained obligates me to pay part of the cost. Again, I don't see the incentive to respect libertarian views here. My point is obviously that it is the majority viewpoint that creates the drive to respect libertarian viewpoints and not the "organization" of force (for the most part). Would you rather live with anarcho-capitalism where the majority is socialistic leaning or would you rather live with a limited state where the majority is libertarian leaning? Force is like no other product or service. If my neighbor refuses to buy my television product or consulting service then we never have to engage, but it's different with the service of force. If I have some decent evidence that my neighbor is molesting children, then unlike all other products and services, I or part of the community will engage him without his consent. When that happens then other neighbors who might not know what's going on who see me or part of the community engage this person will then engage us against our will without our consent and then this sort of thing will continue until we all figure out what the hell is going on. This doesn't happen with any other product or service.
Published: August 12, 2005 10:32 AM
Mark, it's both. The political views themselves create certain circumstances that then interact with the organizational circumstances. But a socialist majority would have un uphill battle in an anarchist society, and would have to overcome the economic disadvantages for forming a government. Not that it's impossible, but it is more difficult.
Published: August 12, 2005 10:40 AM
Bruno, is it easier and more cost-effective to fight than it is to negotiate and arbitrate? Fighting would be a last resort if all else fails. The first thing they would do, if the two agencies didn't already have an agreement between themselves, would be to appeal to an arbitration court. The decision of the court would then form a basis for future legal situations between the two agencies, and the foundation for a contractual agreement.
Forming territorial boundaries for monopoly requires additional resources to protect those boundaries, and thus is a second-best solution to arbitration. Again, it is the coercive monopoly that is the cause of problems, the initiation of force, and not merely the use of force.
Published: August 12, 2005 10:45 AM
I think you misinterpret the role of the police agency. When the idiot on the street attacks you, he violates your property rights, and you can sue him. Leaving out all the theories about how that works I’m going to fast forward to the point where verdict is know. Now that the idiot is found guilty, your police agency can extract the money that he owes you for attacking you(considering that was the punishment chosen by the judge). The police agency of the idiot never comes into the picture, since the idiot if found guilty in court. Why would RonPol begin to violate the property rights of your police agency if the only result thereof will be, lost employees, high costs and jail time. When if the don’t act they keep there employees, there money, the idiot as there customer(although with less funds) and they keep there other customers(because any rogue agency loses customers as there reputation goes down). So it’s in RonPol’s best interest to do nothing but obey the judge’s ruling. The result will be no wars.
I think if the police agency’s are divided over certain area’s, they each have a monopoly of police services in that area and the customers are thus not free to chose. And who is going to do the dividing of territories, this kind of approach would lead to massive disagreement and the only way to grow is to extend your territory by force. So that system would definitely not work, and I don’t think that this system would naturally evolve on the free market, because the system I propose is the most economic for all companies. I hope this clarifies my point of view
Published: August 12, 2005 10:51 AM
Michael, I hadn't refreshed my blog so I didn't see that you made the same points I did. But I hope this clears things up for Bruno
Published: August 12, 2005 10:54 AM
Michael,
I'm not saying they would have to organize a "government". The majority of private protection firms could just push most of their views in the same way that most pro-anarchists on mises.org assume libertarian views would be pushed in society--through interactions among competing agencies. So again, I don't see how anarchy would make a real difference over a limited government where the vast majority of people in both cases were socialistic leaning. Whether I'm told to help pay for the park by a town police officer or an ABC Inc. employee with a gun, it doesn't really matter at the time I'm writing out the check.
Published: August 12, 2005 10:56 AM
We live in anarchy today. At no level does this myth called "government" really exist. The Feral Gummint is really just a Mafia that, for whatever reason, those state-worshipers have imbued with "legitimacy." The main complaint of statists vs. anarchy is that "in anarchy the rich and powerful would rule, those who have the guns would use force to get their way." And that is different from today's world ... how? At the highest levels, i.e. those illuminati who are vying for positions of "power" inside the "government" - does not anarchy exist? And between "governments" and "nations" - is there not, today, a state of anarchy between India and China, the U.S. and North Korea, etc.?
Published: August 12, 2005 12:48 PM
For Bruno -
http://www.liberalia.com/htm/mvn_stateless_somalis.htm
Bruno, there will always be people that want to kill, steal, extort and all the other conventionally unjust acts but that doesn't have to invalidate the conception of an ordered anarchy. The purpose of a society is for people to live together under common interest so they can all fulfill their given ends. Those of which have ends which people find unacceptable eg serial killers (who give the act of killing as an end in itself) will not be able to interact in the society.
Your assumption is that everyone desires power over others in a given territory. I know at least I don't. Those who work for a police agency are not ideological followers but employees who will possess a variety of different values and morals. The origin of the state is brigandage.
"Television companies can't fight one another with guns (they might in Mogadishu)."
They can if they wish, that holds for any television company in any country in the world.
Mark F -
I think if 85% of a population in any given geographical area wanted a state and were prepared to force the other 15% then the likelihood is that the state would be brought about. The point of the anarcho-capitalist is showing people that the state isn't necessary but that doesn't mean if enough believe it is that it wont be created. It will of course be created if enough people will it so for they believe it will benefit them, rightly or wrongly. States cannot be kept limited yet you are assuming they can. Anthony de Jasay has very conclusively shown that.
Published: August 12, 2005 12:53 PM
"Do we ever really get out of anarchy?" www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf
Published: August 12, 2005 12:59 PM
If there were no government...
Armed gangs would maraud the land, stealing over half of what you earn. It would get so bad that resisting would be pointless. They'd hand out forms, let you figure out how much you "owe" them, and just sit back and let it all roll in. If you made a mistake, well, then they'd have to get brutal, seizing other possessions of yours or throwing you in a dungeon.
They would have the arrogance to claim that it's for your benefit because you're getting "protection," but the protection would be from hazards they alone create. Your only consolation would be that they would use heavy-handed tactics against those that dare challenge their looting monopoly and commit "unofficial" crimes. Of course, they would turn this same wrath against people that defended themselves from the gang, 'cause hey, how dare you go to someone else for your protection? That's what the marauding bandits are for.
Oh, but it gets worse. Not only would they loot and plunder you, they'd indoctrinate you into thinking it's justified! They would tell you that your children need to be educated - and who could disagree - so you'd better use their "schools" or you might run into problems - like finding out what your brains look like. And in these so-called "schools" they'd teach you how to be a good victim, how to participate in the process of wealth transfer, and how if you play your cards right, you just might get to join them! Whoo hoo! So they'd even force you to pay to be taught to go along with it!
It's a good thing we don't have that today, yessiree.
Published: August 12, 2005 1:37 PM
JC,
I agree that there is no guarantee that a limited government will stay limited, but you're assuming that anarchy will remain "limited" and you are assuming that private protection companies won't push socialistic ideas without forming a "state". I think both assumptions are incorrect. I do favor supporting a single limited "state" for a relatively small territory (maybe the size of a county or so), but I do not favor giving that single "state" a monopoly per se. I would only encourage all individuals, or at least a strong majority, to support a single agency. I also favor voluntary taxation (or should I call it donations to avoid an oxymoron), which I believe is the major reason why states cannot stay limited. You say, "The point of the anarcho-capitalist is showing people that the state isn't necessary..." I think this is where we jump on the semantics bus. The question is not whether or not we need a "state" (that already assumes your own answer). The question is whether or not we need nonconsensual force to live in a civil society and unfortunately the answer is yes. But like I said, I favor voluntarily supporting a single agency in each territory and you believe we should support the agency we like the best among many competing agencies. The presence of other agencies, in your view, will not cause any more problems than a single agency would. And I'm assuming you believe that a company providing the service of nonconsensual force is no different than any other product or service. I disagree with that view, but I still remain open to the idea of anarcho-capitalism. The term "state" is nothing but semantics. What is the best way to utilize nonconsensual force is the real question. My answer is small competing territories funded by voluntary donations and/or other voluntary means.
Published: August 12, 2005 1:45 PM
Fighting is far more efficient than arbitration or negotiation, at least for the better armed team. Or put differently "comply or I'll blow your head off" tends to get resolved more quickly than "do you want 2 future draft choices for Mr. Smith?". If there are two "police" agencies, and one can completely destroy the other (leaving no one to arbitrate their claims, much less enforce them), it would be quick and easy to destroy them.
Don't think individuals so much as nations - even small ones. They can try to negotiate as when Germany linked with Austria pre WW2, but Germany used blitzkrieg against Poland.
The flaw in the logic may come from the intent for the resources. Markets allocate them efficiently, but what if you want to destroy a resource, not change any current distribution by exchange?
As to anarchy - the problem is that in the fundamental situation, everyone must protect his own life, liberty, and property (and try to do his business while others are spending their day finding ways of violating these things). Anarchy is not liberty, and few people have really suggested such (or it is freedom in the same way as living on an island where there is no one else to oppress or be oppressed by).
In cases where there may be proto oppressors and the proto oppressed, there are suggestions as to businesses that would do what the state is supposed to - protect people from being oppressed. A lot of thought has gone into the setup and how they MAY work, but in most cases they have the same problems of minarchy or any other form of government. And there are many difficult cases (the equivalent of national defense in a crisis). That a private police or army would be self-limiting or self-correcting is not obvious. Or when pushed it simply turns into a state in as much it does things indistinguishable from a state, though it is called something different.
I tend to fall into the minarchist camp (the US Constitution was a good model, add explicit nullification and secession provisions and ban a national bank and it might work). This is because I would rather see and point to the known evil.
Moving coercion from an official public sector that has little direct economic power to a private corporation might be worse - think if we just subcontracted the entire US government apparatus to Haliburton but didn't change anything else. It would then be a private corporate tyranny.
People today don't remember GM as "mother motors" and the IBM corporate songbook from my Father's time. They were at one time lauded much as the state is today. This would be a bad thing. (Another reason I suspect economic power a priori including those who seem to laud WalMart or Microsoft even when they are doing things only possible under the economic distortions brought about by the state). A corporatocracy would not be an improvement.
Published: August 12, 2005 2:45 PM
We live in anarchy today. At no level does this myth called "government" really exist.- Bill R.
Huh. Imagine that. Defacto Anarchy
Published: August 12, 2005 4:32 PM
Bruno, I don't understand your assertion that protection companies must have "territories". There is no reason why two buildings side by side cannot contract with different firms, or customers on different floors, or for that matter two adjacent offices.
I see no reason that I might use Pinkertons, and you Wells Fargo, yet we drive on a road patrolled by Griswalds.
Can you see what I mean?
Published: August 12, 2005 5:37 PM
Curt,
The rationale behind the territory requirement is that the use of nonconsensual force (against someone you suspect initiated force, but don't know for sure) is a service that is unique. It is like no other product or service. For example, you wouldn't use nonconsenting force against a Best Buy salesman during any stage of a computer purchase or for any other service or product during the sale. Even with multiple protection agencies, a standard set of laws will most likely emerge just like we see standardization and consolidation in the free-market now (e.g. 8.5 in x 11 in paper and standard size ATM cards and consolidation of corporations). And being that the use of nonconsensual force is unique, I could see that happening to an even greater extent and ultimately to a single protection agency and hence, a single set of laws. I can't emphasize the uniqueness of the force that would be utilized by protection agencies. Just look at companies like Microsoft and Apple. Do they have to cooperate with each other in today's environment? Not at all. They only compete for CONSENSUAL customers. What if their service was courts, police, and prisons? Would they have to cooperate with the Apple company down the street in this environment? Of course, and even anarchists would concede to that. You don't think this would drive consolidation and massive standarization? I think it would. Territories are just a natural result. Our job is to promote libertarianism for those territories the best we can.
Published: August 12, 2005 7:28 PM
Mark F. -- your arguments lacks a simple, but critical link: there's no way to show that from a "special" nature of the protection product follows that providers must have territorial monopolies.
In fact, even a cursory study of behaviour of animals (which, arguably, live in the state of anarchy, at least at inter-group level - and do not have any notion of natural law of rights beyond might-makes-it-right) produces more than enough examples of non-territoriality.
Published: August 12, 2005 9:29 PM
Bill R. seems to have nailed something. Wolf's term for it is defacto anarchism (looking through his linked article, I think he may have been intending to ridicule the idea, but I didn't read closely enough to tell).
I have started many conversations with the idea that people ought not to expect others to help pay for what they want, regardless of how universal the desire appears. If this seems agreeable, I follow up with the fact that there is therefore no justification for the enforcement of tax laws. Most people draw from this follow up a telling conclusion: "but how can we live together without a government?" So most people believe that the government would cease to exist if tax laws were not enforced.
I have tried to avoid use of the term "state" or "government" because deep down, I see things the way Bill R sees them. Therefore, I cannot argue that we should do away with the state. I can only argue against popular ideas, like the idea that everyone should help pay for certain things.
Now for some discussion about what others have said:
Rothbard defines the state as an "agency which more or less successfully enforces a monopoly of coercion over a given territory".
I see a role for such an agency in the anarchy that Bill R and I agree is the unescapable reality. Furthermore, I argue that those benefitting from that agency had better find something more stable, because monopolies, especially those of coercion, are prone to end badly.
With law thus established, along with the means for its enforcement, a right-makes-might system would be in place, precluding the might-makes-right (Law of the Jungle) that would prevail in a purely anarchical situation and, more to the point, prevails today in statist society.
-David White
Unless David is making an unfounded prediction about what anarchy (that doesn't exist) would produce, this seems like a tacit recognition that Bill R and I are right in perceiving that we are in an anarchy already.
In my opinion, it's not so much how the use of force is "organized" (anarcho-capitalism, limited government, democracy, monarchy, etc.), but the attitude of the majority of people.
-Mark F
I agree, and the specific attitude I see as the most damaging is that there are certain things everyone should help pay for. More personally, I think this is the same as the attitude that others should help pay for what I want.
when there is no honor in defending liberty, just what the market can provide in the pay packet which would be little, the AnCap society will end.
-tz
I think this shows that tz, along with Georgist, have a severe disgust for the human animal. They do not appear to believe that humans would freely interact with each other in peace. tz is specifically referring to defending against an organized group of invaders. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the value of being recognized as the legitimate government over any specific territory is the ability to tax the people living there. If those people have a tradition of freedom, they won't stand for taxes and the invaders would therefore have no reason to attack. Arguably, they may be after resources, but many Pyrrhic victories have demonstrated that such invaders are bound to fail ever more frequently than they succeed. I'll leave it up to you all to decide whether or not the violence between Israel and Palestine is based on the ability to collect taxes or on religion or on a real disgust that one sort of people have for another.
"JonPol and RonPol will fight."
-Bruno Panetta
Fighting is far more efficient than arbitration or negotiation, at least for the better armed team.
-tz
Bruno and tz both believe that the ripples caused by the quick violent resolution of disputes are negligible. Perhaps they should read Romeo and Juliet. To be fair, Bruno may not believe this himself, but his claim about JonPol and RonPol shows that he believes those who would run protection agencies would believe it. I disagree, believing rather that those who would run protection agencies that were successful in long term would necessarily be the ones that avoided violence altogether.
will then engage us against our will without our consent and then this sort of thing will continue until we all figure out what the hell is going on. This doesn't happen with any other product or service.
-Mark F
Really? Then what the hell is spam? The force that my protection company uses against someone is the same as the advertising that my ad agency uses against someone. You are confusing a third party (the perp, or the potential customer) with the customer (me). I see nonconsensual force as just about the same thing as spam.
On that note, I have a technological (non-violent, non-coercive) solution to spam: When you send an unsolicited email, send $5 too - use paypal. Eventually, email readers will ignore whatever doesn't come in from a known email address unless it comes with some money.
Published: August 12, 2005 11:06 PM
Dave, you did a really excellent job of sorting wheat from chaff. There was a technical problem with my linked article about 'Defecto Anarchy.'
On page 3 of Ali Massoud's archive, 'Govt is Quack Faith Healer' and '51% Solution' both point (wrongly) to Tony Blair article text. I went to archive.org and found that all the old zolatimes links have been blown away. Long arm of the government, probably.
Anyway, these are the original files:
'Defacto Anarchy' link
'51% Solution' link
I owe the board $5 for spam, obviously.
It seems to me that a majority of men are and always have been fit to live in freedom, else how are we to explain our survival?
Published: August 13, 2005 5:20 AM
averros,
you said, "your arguments lacks a simple, but critical link: there's no way to show that from a "special" nature of the protection product follows that providers must have territorial monopolies." You're right and I'm working on that, but the same goes for the anarchist view. I'm assuming you believe, as I do, that the service of protection involves a nonconsensual force (arrests, prosecutions, retribution collection, etc.) that does not exist with any other product or service. How can you show that this unique service (the only one that requires all providers to cooperate and work with each other) works best with two or more providers? I'm sure you'll point to other products and services in the free-market, but that doesn't follow because ALL other products and services deal only with consensual exchanges. Private police forces, prisons, and courts would have to deal with, at some point, nonconsensual exchanges. Dave, you said, "The force that my protection company uses against someone is the same as the advertising that my ad agency uses against someone. You are confusing a third party (the perp, or the potential customer) with the customer (me). I see nonconsensual force as just about the same thing as spam." Are you really describing advertising as nonconsensual force? If someone owns a billboard that you can see from your home is that a violation of your life, liberty, or property? I don't think so. Is spam and unsolicited snail mail nonconsensual force? I would say it is on a very low scale, but I think you are missing my point of the use of nonconseual force as a service offered by a company to a customer as opposed to a violation by a criminal. If someone steals my wallet then that is an act of nonconsensual force, obviously, but that is not a service being provided by the thief. But what if I was the actual thief and the person taking my wallet (or requiring some sort of retribution payment) was an employee of a protection agency or the state? Then the nonconsensual act becomes a service. With your example of spam, if I know who the sender is and I tell him to stop sending his crap and he refuses, then that person should be prosecuted via nonconsensual force (a service). I would also like to distiguish between protection and prosecution. I don't believe the single protection agency or state in each territory should be in the business of protection. The free-market provides for that just fine (alarms, weapons, neighborhood watch, watch dogs, gates, bullet proof vests, etc.), to include the spam example with filtering software and other tools. But when it comes time to arrest, question, prosecute, and lock-up possible violators of life, liberty, and property then this is where the comparison to all other products in the free-market falls apart. Dave, you also said, "...the specific attitude I see as the most damaging is that there are certain things everyone should help pay for. More personally, I think this is the same as the attitude that others should help pay for what I want." There is major difference between saying everyone should pay for a single agency in their territory and forcing people to pay for that single agency. This is something that most democrats miss. I tell many of them for example that libertarians are not against supporting charities, but we are against forcing people to support charities.
Published: August 13, 2005 7:28 AM
If the majority of people believe in libertarian principles then we will have freedom. If the majority of people believe in socialism then we will not have freedom. - Mark F.
A majority believe in God. I don't think they are going to be persuaded otherwise. A majority believe in 'free' public education and the best military that money can buy. Libertarians are fighting a rear guard action in a lost battle for the soul of America.
Bandwidth and unique visits tell the whole story.
Published: August 13, 2005 9:20 AM
I think you misinterpret the role of the police agency. When the idiot on the street attacks you, he violates your property rights, and you can sue him. Leaving out all the theories about how that works I’m going to fast forward to the point where verdict is know
I am still sceptical, because I am not sure what "to sue" means in this context. If justice is privatised this applies to the courts as well as the police. In order to enforce their decisions, the courts must be armed. Two courts may arrive at different verdicts, not just due to errors but simply because they try to enforce different laws (christian, liberal, feminist, etc). Say my wife wants to have an abortion and I want to prevent her. I sue her in a christian court and she counter sues in a feminist court. What happens if the courts deliver opposite verdicts?
Also, what happens if my holier-than-thou neighbour sues me in a christian court because according to him I am not living according to his principles?
On the whole I am a bit of an agnostic when it comes to AnCap. I am sceptical about (but open to) the possibility that it might work without degenerating very quickly into a system of states under a different name.
Even if it did work, I am not at all sure I would want to live there, since in such a system it might be much easier for other groups of people to interfere in my private life than it is under the present system.
On a separate note, the Italian mafia has got little or nothing to do with "The Godfather" trilogy. Real mafia families (both in Italy and the US) are much closer to the gangs in "Goodfellas".
Published: August 15, 2005 3:53 AM
tz,
Germany lost the Second World and suffered a huge amount of damage in the process. This is hardly a good example of the practical advantages of violence as a problem solver. Wasn't Germany "the stronger party"? In a sense they were; they probably could've taken any one other country in the world in a fair fight, mano a mano, except perhaps the U.S.
Combat is almost a bad strategy in the long run. Those who live by the sword tend to die by it, even when they appear to be the strongest around. What is an effective strategy, in some cases, is the threat of violence; if you can convince your enemies not to fight you, you're in a very strong position.
Published: August 15, 2005 4:10 AM
Bruno, is it easier and more cost-effective to fight than it is to negotiate and arbitrate? Fighting would be a last resort if all else fails. The first thing they would do, if the two agencies didn't already have an agreement between themselves, would be to appeal to an arbitration court.
But under AnCap the arbitration courts will also be competing private institutions, possibly with different definitions of property. Under such conditions conflict is inevitable.
Published: August 15, 2005 10:25 AM
Sorry if the formatting on this is a little weird - I can't tell if I need to add <BR> tags at the end of my paragraphs.
...but I think you are missing my point of the use of nonconseual force as a service offered by a company to a customer as opposed to a violation by a criminal.
-Mark
I think I am deliberately ignoring it because the only basis for the distinction is the authority vested either in the state or in a protection agency. Your examples of thievery that may on one hand be a violation by a criminal and on the other a service show this. Rather than rely on such an authority to distinguish, I make the distinction on my own, but I generally refuse to impose it on others. I also have an extremely difficult time making a general description of how I make the distinction. I feel it's best to evaluate on a case by case basis whether the thievery (or any act) justifies the use of nonconsensual force. And yes, that I "generally refuse to impose it on others" means that almost no thievery justifies the use of nonconsensual force. (I prefer publication of the facts to those who know and sork with the thief.)
There is major difference between saying everyone should pay for a single agency in their territory and forcing people to pay for that single agency.
-Mark
Yes, I know there is a difference. The reason the "saying everyone should" is so much more important to me is that I think it is the root cause of the "forcing people to pay." There is also a major difference, for example, between saying your child is stupid and ruining his or her life. I think it is much more useful to implore others to avoid calling their children stupid than to implore them not to ruin their children's lives.
Published: August 15, 2005 10:31 AM
Many untaxed societies (we would call them tribal or our fathers "uncivilized") were annihilated because they happened to live near or on a resource a larger power wanted. It isn't a matter of "taxation", or a tradition of liberty (especially when that tradition doesn't include defense). War is never rational, yet it happens constantly. Yet it is the product of men, not mother nature. Hurricanes happen, war is intended.
My ideas about the human beings (I don't consider us to be animals - our will and reason make us differ in KIND, not degree) are that we can be both angels or devils. The latter won't be affected by appeals to reason. We have revenge because people hate others enough to destroy themselves along with the other - even if the other could well compensate for any monetary damage caused. That mother in front of Bush's ranch in Texas isn't there asking for a compensatory sum.
And there are plenty of ripples to violent conflict but - and here is the key - they are externalities. If Godzilla and Rodan fight in a city - it doesn't matter if Godzilla or Rodan wins, the city will be destroyed, but neither Godzilla nor Rodan are interested in having tea at the pile of incinerated rubble which used to be Mrs. Jones and her house. The damage of war is not normally borne by those waging it. There will be indirect impacts - all will eventually suffer (as did Germany, but if Pearl Harbor never happened, and Hitler split from Japan and didn't declare war on us, the world might be very different today).
It may be stupid, especially in the long term (isn't there another article about the merits of WCOM and ENE?), but people do stupid or foolish things, and there are some people who are evil and want war. Hitler wanted to create a society for the aryans - which also included darwinian struggles for survival even of the better members - not one of peace and prosperity.
Monetary avarice is mitigated by capitalism, but that isn't the only cardinal sin, and it isn't always about money. If you have people motivated by evil, you cannot use an argument about the good (they may be amoral or think the evil they are doing is good - most people don't like ethnic cleansing but might allow "cleanliness is next to godliness"). Nor might you be able to use their greed to suppress whatever other vice drives them to violence. Rapes still occur in this culture where sex is universally available, often for free.
The invaders may ultimately fail, and even if they succeed it might be a Pyrric victory, but that doesn't mean that war won't be fought.
I don't know the percentage of people who will act with positive evil intent, but it is nonzero, and a sufficient number will destroy peace. The people who post here might all be able to "just get along", but not everyone in society. Worse, reason becomes a weapon for greater evils, divising better evasion, more complex frauds, and ways of causing harm at a distance.
Finally, since we have the state which we complain about here constantly, there must be a part of the population who want power more than liberty. I don't see them disappearing or changing their attitude or behavior even if some kind of sci-fi beam transformed the earth into a Rothbardian-Hoppian AnCap paradise tomorrow. If the beam gets turned off , these people will still want power and will do things to acquire it, even violent or otherwise irrational things (e.g. they may wish to rule as a king a poor country than to live better than said king in a free society).
Published: August 15, 2005 11:32 AM
Wolf's articles are pretty good.
The link to 51% solution is the same as the one to Defacto Anarchy.
Wolf, the link to 51% solution in the conclusion of Defacto Anarchy leads to a page with a missing image. Apparently, there is a location in that missing image that has the link to the actual article. I found that location and thus the real article.
It is here
My Relationship to Society
Published: August 15, 2005 12:24 PM
Of course people will seek power in an AnCap society as you point out, it’s been stated a hundred times that we don’t expect people to change. But in the current situation people who want to have power over others have the state apparatus to achieve that end. Where as in a AnCap society such a means is not available and people that try to gain power by coercing will be sued and punished by law. But now a person can make it’s way trough the bureaucratic system by lies and disseat, violating property rights and still be above the law. Look at Bush. So I think the checks on gaining power in the AnCap society are better than the NO checks that the current system has.
Published: August 15, 2005 12:25 PM
tz,
You're right, anarchy would not prevent evil or war. But minarchy is the idea that everyone should be forced to help pay for protection from those things. The arguments that we all use for getting the state out of business work just as well for getting it out of the business of protecting people from these threats. Rejection of the legitimacy of the state, whether as it is now or as a minarchist state, would lead to a lower cost for protection from those things. That conclusion, on my part, is based on my basic faith in the goodness of the vast majority of the people around me.
I am glad to sense that your estimate of how good people would be even when there is no "ultimate authority" to keep them in line is growing bigger.
I categorically reject your claim that the part of the population that wants power more than liberty will not change their minds. People change their minds all the time, and it is often in response to the changing world. Those people have a pretty good understanding of a world in which people expect everyone to pay for certain things, but if exploited citizens started taking more responsibility for themselves, and expected to entirely cover the costs of what they want, then those people that want power more than liberty would find that the power they want comes less and less from being popular and more and more from being valuable and providing liberty.
Published: August 15, 2005 1:06 PM
I met my new neighbor and his wife the other day. He said his name was "__" like the governor. I replied "I don't pay attention to who's governor. In my mind, keeping track of who the governor is, is a lot like caring whether Don Corleone or Sonny is in charge. Doesn't change my interaction with them a bit." His wife looked at me kind of odd, then nodded her head and said, "yes, you just pay your bill on go on."
I probably have 20-30 interactions like this a month. Every opportunity I get, I either compare "government" to the mafia by pointing out their profit motive, or point out their incompetence through questions like "when was the last time you saw a cop prevent an accident? and when was the last time you saw a cop write a ticket?" There's a pretty common realization that what is said about "government" isn't true, but it's below the surface, and most people don't LET themselves think about it for very long. It's scary, to be faced with reconsidering everything you've ever been taught ...
I've given up arguments where statists ask me "how would X work without government?" I don't play nice anymore. I attack. I point out that "X doesn't work today WITH 'government'" because THAT'S how I came to recognize anarchy. By realizing "government" doesn't work.
Published: August 15, 2005 1:08 PM