I guess my argument runs, then, that the arguments against monopoly do not apply to the legal system, because there are situations that a monopolistic legal system can handle that a free-market one cannot, such as universal securing of basic rights and justice.
This is the exact problem I am proposing.
Well, learning skills should not be conflated with the education received at public schools. It should be considered that the cost of private education would be substantially reduced in a free market, and it should also be considered that demand for an intellectual education would probably be quite limited. The current “intellectual education” system, known as the public school system, overly emphasizes the role of general education. In Spain, for example, a large portion of the population learns a skill and utilizes it to make a living. This type of education has been marginalized by the State, in the United States.
We are risking turning this thread into one of education, so I will stop here and instead pick up with the topic of private security.
No, it does not—at least, not with the consequences you suggest would occur. The demand for protection is infinite. One can provide that protection himself, or he could outsource it. There’s no reason why an individual could not provide his own security—there would be no laws making certain defensive techniques illegal (such as laws which protect the criminal if they damage themselves during a forced entry, or are shot or even killed). There is no reason why communities could not collude to donate money into a common pool of savings, as to pay for collective protection (such communities exist for other services which are not paid for by the government, already). The possibilities are endless.
But the problem is that public education is not free or even “nearly free.” The costs are just hidden under layers upon layers of bloated bureaucracy and taxpaying.
Does any of this give someone the moral right to extort payments for socialized schooling or defense?
like the right to 100% of your property and to not be jailed for victimless crimes?
One would presume that a Minarchy would not jail you for victimless crimes. As for the other…
More and more as I read people’s views on this site, I realize that some consequences of ancap are morally abhorrent to me. So while I view people’s right to their property as a high moral principle, I do not view it as the HIGHEST moral principle. I’d love to find a way to support the government without taxation, or for someone to find a way to solve problems entirely without a government. Until such is possible… yes, I’m willing to accept a State which takes a little of everyone’s money in order to secure the principles I see as more important. Does that make me an imperfect Libertarian? I’m okay with that.
I too would reject anarchy if it had massively horrendous consequences. But I see no reason to think that it does. Indeed, I think market anarchism is the best possible society for both moral and consequentialist reasons.
Market anarchism= you get to sell your cake, and eat it too [:D]
I would probably say that I am an anarchist more for moral reasons, but it certainly doesn hurt that everything the gov’t does makes things worse. Or maybe I should say, it certainly does hurt, and thats why its even more reason to be an anarchist.
This sounds similar to the necessity of a recession after a government induced boom and peoples excuses to not allow the market to correct itself. Look, just because the medicine tastes bad doesn’t mean you shouldn’t swallow it if it is going to make you feel better in the long run.