It occurred to me on the way to the bathroom after my last post that what I said to Anthony is a pretty big problem. Who gets to determine whether something violates someone’s rights or not? Rothbard wrote that it would be easy to create a set of libertarian laws, but I’m really not sure that this is the case. This isn’t just a problem for minarchism, of course, and could plausibly be solved just as effectively in a minarchistic order as it could in a market-anarchistic order, but I wonder if people are satisfied that it could be solved. I remember wondering about that a while ago, and then sort of forgetting about it as I stopped thinking about this sort of thing. But I don’t think I’m satisfied with anything I can think of. Does anyone have any thoughts? If this is a thread-hijacking sort of issue, we can totally take it elsewhere…
Nozick’s entire argument on market anarchism hinges on his notion of procedural rights. If one does not acknowledge the existence of these and somehow refutes Nozick’s argument (as one paper has attempted to IIRC), then the dominant agency is acting no differently than a State, and in effect outlaws competition, providing compensation for those prohibited from doing so (something a modern State of course doesn’t do.) Rothbard dealt with the problems inherent in this view in the Ethics of Liberty. Rand is also typically taken as a minarchist, and to my knowledge would also believe that competition to her Objectivist state should be outlawed. If minarchism does not involve this element of prohibition, it is no different to market anarchism.
Well so then it seems like the real “challenge” to the minarchist would be to determine whether this sort of prohibition is actually a violation of people’s rights, no?
Indeed. I was simply pointing out that it is generally part and parcel of minarchism. Nozick’s argument for it is one of the most sophisticated I’ve seen.
I believe most of you here are missing the target and I mean missing big time. First anarchy (I refer to anarcho-capitalism here) or minarchy is not a goal, but they are means. Means to achieving such a thing (lets call this society) where free individuals can cooperate, where contract can be made and fulfilled, where the division of labor (voluntary) is possible and where free individuals can voluntarily combine their energy, efforts and capital to achieve more than they can in a primitive barbarian state of affairs. Can we have a society which enables us to enjoy the full potentials of liberty, to have undisputed private property and self ownership and to be able to cooperate with other individuals in order to have a mutual gain by moral principles of liberty? If a minarchist think he can achieve liberty by using force against individuals which don’t want to be the part of that society voluntarily, then he is no minarchist at all. Minarchist are for a constitutional order for a society where people join in order to advance the life of every member but a constitution is a contract between people where they establish the Government as a corrective instrument as a secondary tool, and not as a primary tool and if some people don’t agree to that contract (the constitution) there is nothing to correct, the government can only correct the behavior of those people (strictly by the constitution) who accept that contract, but who are injuring other members of the society. Individuals, who are not part of that society, should be free to live as they wish up to the moment they do something what will injure the members of the society. In that moment it would be a sort of external aggression and the Government should act because its duty is to protect the life of property of their citizen. If no injury, Government has no right to act, not inside the society and not outside the society. Anyway, anarchism and minarchism are not goals they are means, so it should be analyzed from the perspective of capability, can anarchy achieve the free society? Can minarchy achieve a free society? If both, why? If only one of the two, then how can we have a practical implementation on the field and not just a theory in the book? Of course liberty means that someone can join us (if he respect and accept the contract we have among each other = Constitution) and he can leave that society and find another one which is suite him more or he can live free of any society if he wish.
You are still incorrect aludanyi. Minarchy and anarchy are not means, they are outcomes of the means, much like the market is an outcome of exchanges of private property.
If you declare yourself a minarchist but are unwilling to go to war to maintain a territorial monopoly, then the outcome of your choice will be anarchy, and your government will become one security provider amongst many others in the same country. That is the nature of the challenge.
You’re making an unconventional use of the word state and I cannot read any meaning into this paragraph.
There is no contradiction here, only a very unstable starting equilibrium. If the minarchy does not opt to exterminate the upstart union of courts immediately, it will be in a de facto anarchy with them. In that case, if it doesn’t arbitrate disputes with them (including disputes involving citizens leaving for the union), it will always be at war with the union, thus facing higher costs for the production of security and justice that will drive even more of its citizens to the union (aggression being more expensive than defense). Either way the minarchy must exterminate its competition or collapse into one security provider amongst others, forced by competitive pressures to behave the same way as the others. It will lose all of its taxation powers.
OK the first thing is something I can agree with, your definition is more precise than the one I write.
But I can’t see how a territory a superior thing to property can be compatible with private property. Either the land is private and belongs to the individuals or it is belonging to the society (country?) and then it isn’t private. Private property is not compatible with territory superior to property; either the sovereignty is belonging to the people, to the individual or to the state. If we talking about liberty and true minarchism then there is no question about that the territory of the society is secondary and derived from the private property of the individual, so technically the territory where the government can exercise the powers granted by the constitution accepted by the individuals is no more and no less than the territory made of the properties of those society members. There is no way to go to just war on the basis of territory if those land which made up the territory isn’t belong to the individuals who accept to be members of that society. How can we have such a thing in a real environment? Well that’s a good question, but if it happens that we don’t know the answer it doesn’t mean that the concept is false, it is just a problem we have to solve.
Whatever the alleged challenge to minarchists, anarchism should be rejected. Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force. When the government enforces a verdict, its exercising its monopoly on the use of force upon another, involuntarily. Anarchists hold this to be immoral. If this is the case, then no anarchist could conceivably advocate the existence of private competing protection agencies that enforce verdicts because the second a protection agency enforces a verdict indefinitely, poof, it becomes a legal monopoly on the use of force, i.e., a government. cough…
This arguement makes no sense to me. You’ve left out one of the most important factors: territory. The market anarchist definition of a government is not “a legal monopoly on the use of force”, it’s more along the lines of “a coercive territorial monopoly on the use of force”. The private protection agencies in a market anarchy do not possess a coercive territorial monopoly, and thus any verdict reached has a very different jurisdictional implication then that of a formal government. An objectivist government, on the other hand, while it tries to make payment voluntary, still insists on maintaining a territorial monopoly.
That is, if I decide to open up or patronize another “government” (if you want to call it that) within the territory, your objectivist government is faced with the choice of (1) initiating force, or the threat thereof, in order to stop me or (2) doing nothing, allowing competition, and therefore ceasing to be a “government” in any rational definition of the word. The objectivist’s notion of government contradicts their own ethical philosophy in that they must support the initiation of force in order to maintain the territorial monopoly, despite the fact that you try to make payment based on either donations or subscriptions.
Furthermore, the common Objectivist retort to anarchism that there must be uniformity in law, if taken to its logical conclusion, must lead to advocacy of a global government, for “international anarchy” exists between nation-states, and the same would apply to the differences between the states in America. The most true legal monopoly on the use of force would have to be at the global level, otherwise we are faced with a glaring inconsistancy in still maintaining varying nation-states, let alone jurisdictional sub-divisions within them. Of course, Objectivists don’t have a knack for taking their own ideas to their logical conclusion in the realm of politics, for that would require them to become vehemently anti-war free market anarchists.
Objectivist, that does not follow. All a State is delegated (and as an Objectivist you should know this) is the right to self-defence. Similarly, a private firm (or any other entity providing law and order in market anarchism) would be delegated this right and would enforce it when necessary. A state is privileged over and above this with a monopoly on the enforcement of this delegated right.
Hah! That question is like “When did you stop beating your wife?”. You dictate my first course of action via the question. I would not go to war with them at all.
Indeed, I would take no action against them, until they broke a just law. As a (sort of) Geolibertarian myself, if they aggressed against someone for crossing “their” land for which they have not paid rent, this would probably be the most controvertial situation where I would use force against them, or if they openly tried to abort a child or get an abortion. Otherwise, using my forces to prevent them mugging someone is something I hardly think even anarchists would object to per se. The members of the Congress of Free Courts need not accept my authority, but they will be exposed to its powers nonetheless should they violate those around them. Will the Congress of Free Courts band behind their rapist bretheren? If not, there need be no war.
Brainpolice, I don’t think objectivist82 was advocating a government which denied individuals the right to make any free decisions (such as which organization to patronize).
He was pointing out an anarchist situation in which an individual accused (innocent or guilty) of a crime has a sentenced imposed upon him by an organization he never agreed to patronize. No matter which organization is “doing the imposing”, it will clearly use force to enforce that decision.
No matter what you want to call that organization, it is clearly claiming a monopoly on that particular case, regardless of whether the accused agreed to use that organization or whether any other organizations wanted the case.
You appear to misunderstand something fundamental about anarchism.
First and most importantly, initiation of aggression is immoral and illegal, where “illegal” means “may morally be countered by force.” By definition, initiation of aggression is the only thing which is illegal. After all, if someone doesn’t initiate aggression, but I counter his actions by force, then I’m initiating aggression, and he may morally counter it with force.
That distinction is important because plenty of other things may be deemed immoral, but not illegal. Prostitution is immoral, for example–but if people do it, there’s nothing I can do about it except try to persuade them. I can’t counter their actions with force. They can even claim it’s perfectly moral. I’m right and they’re wrong, but there’s nothing I can do about it using force.
If someone steals property, he has initiated force. Since that’s illegal, anyone can use force to stop him. And after the crime is committed, anyone can use force to recover the property. Once recovered, it must be returned to the original owner, or else the recoverer himself is a thief and anyone can use force to recover the property in turn from him.
And “anyone” means anyone, including government agents. There’s nothing immoral whatsoever in police recovering stolen property. To that extent, your original statement is simply wrong: it’s perfectly moral for the government to “enforce a verdict” in that sense. It’s moral for anyone to do so. Enforcing verdicts against mala in se is NOT one of the moral objections to government.
The objection comes in when government enforces verdicts against mala prohibita, otherwise known as “victimless crimes.” In these cases there is no aggressor; therefore the government becomes the aggressor when it uses force. That IS a moral objection to government–but it doesn’t apply to private defense agencies: PDAs have no authority whatsoever to use force against non-aggressors. This entire class of crimes cease to exist with government.
Another, equally important objection, is that even when government acts morally against aggressors, it imposes the cost of its actions on the unwilling, through taxation. Whenever police stop a murder in progress, they’re doing something moral and something immoral at the same time: they’re stopping aggression, which is moral; and they’re drawing a salary from stolen monies, which is immoral. They’re like the thief that robs a store, while at the same time apprehending a competing thief trying to do the same. This objection doesn’t apply to PDAs, because they have no power to tax. Taxation vanishes with government.
Lastly, the “monopoly” aspect of your argument is a red herring. The fact that I buy a particular gallon of milk from a particular store does NOT give that store a “monopoly on the sale of that particular gallon of milk.” That’s torturing terminolgy until its own mother wouldn’t recognize the corpse. In Austrian economics, there is no monopoly unless competitors are forcibly prevented from entering the market. Government not only does that in general, but in particular it will react forcibly if anyone tries to provide defense from government. The crime is committed when they arrest the wrong man, or convict someone of murder for defending himself against police aggression, etc. In other words, when they enforce their monopoly.
Anyone who wants to can say he has a monopoly until he’s blue in the face. Only when he enforces it is the crime committed.
I don’t think you addressed any of it, unless you were saying that Mr. Objectivist wasn’t describing the situation I was describing.
Could you point out where I’m wrong? Keep in mind that we’ve left the realm of voluntary transactions once someone is accused of a crime; also, keep in mind that the accused isn’t always guilty (and isn’t always innocent!).