Regarding private protection in an anarchic system, does that mean that some people won’t have protection? Because there will always be some extremely poor people … what would happen to them?
Also, just another question. Do people here ever get faced with the question of why you believe in anarcho-capitalism, and get discredited for not being pragmatic? People sort of say, “oh, but you ought to be realistic! There will always be a gov.”
Thanks
How well are the poor protected by the state today?
We can imagine many ways the poor (if there exist people in such dire poverty) would “buy” defense, if they must buy it at all. The poor might band together and provide for their common defense, might be support by charities, etc.
Hello Michael Green,
Firstly, I am not an advocate of government monopoly and would rather the free-market where people work together. It does bother me though, that unlike other goods and services in society, protection is quite important. I mean if you’re a poor single mother who may not be able to afford private protection, doesn’t that mean that in an anarchic system should would be very vulnerbale ?
I do realise that AC isn’t perfect and thus won’t solve all problems. There will still be some crime, even if we all became anarchic societies … but I am not sure what kind of arrangement the poorest and most vulnerbale would have.
I have never been particularly swayed by references to charity. It seems to leave too much to chance and hope, and appeals to human compassion. You might have a point with respect to community protection. In England, some streets have a ‘neighbourhood watch’ system … I suppose that could be extended to the free-market? But that also seems rather shacky.
There are, in protection as for every other good, different degrees of quality. If indeed businesses and wealthy individuals could afford private contractors, and neighborhoods could afford patrol and restitution systems, a poor guy will have to settle for this
Note that guns and guns alone are keeping Switzerland one of the safest places on earth. So even in its ‘minimal’ level of protection, a poor guy would be as safe as someone in Switzerland. Indeed, even without all the fancy insurance schemes proposed for an ancap society, the availability of guns would be enough to make that the safest society ever.
Anyone can put themselves in a vulnerable position. I can decide to walk around at night in rough parts of town with dollar bills hanging out of my pockets and my hands tied behind my back. Does that mean that an anarchic system has failed to protect me?
There are two things to understand about the anarchism commonly discussed here.
The state is a bigger predator than any private actor. Take police violence against the innocent and the effects of draconian laws and prohibition with regard to the development of violent black markets.
No one is promising Utopia with anarchism, simply a more moral foundation for social relations. Single women with children will need to make lifestyle choices to mitigate the risk of their condition. Creating a system where they are cared for (subsidized) only generates more of them, who in turn need more protection. It is a race to the bottom. Personally, I think they need a man, or a tough girlfriend, or a baseball bat, or karate lessons or to move somewhere safe, or to join a community that will protect them.
Very vulnerable compared to what? Compared to a rich person, sure, the single mother is likely (but not necessarily!) more “vulnerable.” But I agree with you that protection is quite important for most every person, and so most every person will seek to address their desire for protection before addressing other desires. How might a single mother, finding herself without much money, goods to barter or skills to employ, secure her protection? I have no idea - I don’t know enough about this hypothetical person and know nothing of her hypothetical environment. But I’m sure she will figure it out; after all, she knows the real options available to her.
Perhaps she will find support from an organization catering to single mothers. Perhaps she will get a gun and make sure it’s visible to all those who approach her. Perhaps she lives in a society peaceful enough that she can get by without any weapons, insurance plans or locks on the door. The problem with these hypothetical scenarios is that either side can craft whatever details that support their position.
I also imagine that, assuming she’s not homeless, then her mere occupancy of a house or apartment allows a modicum of security. This is particularly likely if she lives in an apartment building or housing community, in which case she has the opportunity to band with the other residents to provide for their common defense. Maybe they’ll hire a number of masterless samurai to defend them.
I don’t imagine there will be many people in such poor conditions, or for any prolonged period of time. I think wealth would be plentiful enough and labor valuable enough that even the greatly disabled would find assistance.
Lastly, a person in contemporary America can be poor for any number of reasons that likely would not exist absent the state. Think of the drug war, public housing, public schools, welfare, redistributing wealth to established corporations, etc.
People sort of say, “oh, but you ought to be realistic! There will always be a gov.”
Standard logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition).
Note that guns and guns alone are keeping Switzerland one of the safest places on earth.
People actually carrying loaded guns on their person for protection is a pretty rare occurence in Switzerland, as getting a permit for that is sort of like getting a CCW permit in New Jersey (as opposed to Texas). Assault rifles kept in gun-lockers at peoples’ homes aren’t keeping the average person on the street safe.
People actually carrying loaded guns on their person for protection is a pretty rare occurence in Switzerland, as getting a permit for that is sort of like getting a CCW permit in New Jersey (as opposed to Texas). Assault rifles kept in gun-lockers at peoples’ homes aren’t keeping the average person on the street safe.
Valid point, and I have little doubt that the occasional purse get stolen every now and then, yet when you’re being raped in an alley and 30 houses are within 300m (5.56 mm ammo effective range), I doubt people would just stand and see, cowering in their homes.
+1. The modern affordability of weapons is the only hope of rolling back, and keeping dead, Leviathan. Warrior classes formed because of the scarcity and expense of weapons in ancient times, paving the way for chieftains and kings.
well, at least roads and health care in anarchy would be better… 
hehe
Are you familiar with the Nirvana Fallacy?
Are you familiar with the Bandwagon fallacy?
and the Appeal To Tradition fallacy?
DD5,
I don’t think those links really apply to this conversation. It seems the OP has a question about Libertarian Ideology, which does not necessarily mean he is taking an adversarial approach, so proving him “wrong” doesn’t prove much.
And this is why I went on (in the second post) to point out that “I do realise that AC isn’t perfect and thus won’t solve all problems”, as I anticipated internet-pedants! And sure enough …
Clearly, this is the wrong place for gasp a light-hearted opinion between pragmaticism and idealism. Something I happen to think can’t really be brushed away in conversations with witty internet links to fallacies.
in any case, I think your first question is not an important one to answer it in a detailed fashion (like people are used to on these forums). You should be content with this answer: “charities and/or poor organizing themselves”
The second one is more interesting than the first one. Well, that’s how I see it after all.
I doubt people would just stand and see, cowering in their homes.
Just so we’re clear, I don’t disagree with your point of “more guns = more safety”, but you seem to oversimplify this issue. From what I’ve heard, the percentage of households with guns in the US is almost twice that of Switzerland, so this kind of deterrent should be even more visible in the States.
Indeed. But perhaps a line could be drawn between rural guns ownership and urban gun ownership in the states. Then one must see whether the urban gun ownership ratios are the same in the and , or whether they differ. A rural home can defend itself with a gun, but a gun in a urban house can, due to proximity, defend much more than itself.
But sure, you right: it’s not that simple a relation.
A rural home can defend itself with a gun, but a gun in a urban house can, due to proximity, defend much more than itself.
Good point, mate.
so proving him “wrong” doesn’t prove much.
I’m only superficially familiar with the quoted fallacies, but aren’t they supposed to be proving the other guy wrong? I.e., not the OP, but the hypothetical person they are arguing with.
Regarding private protection in an anarchic system, does that mean that some people won’t have protection? Because there will always be some extremely poor people … what would happen to them?
It’s one of those questions one can’t give a single answer to. It’s like asking “how would roads be maintained if under private ownership?” and you’re answer would be “I don’t know, I’m not the owner of said roads”.
There’s many possibilities. There might be a community pool that they all pay in for protection services. Since there would be competing companies some might try to have services for those individuals or communities who can’t afford it, which would end up spreading business. Individuals may get help from charities or other private organizations. A community may take this into account and help those who need it.
Questions like those which ask “what would happen to the poor?” always act like every option is merely based on a material profit motive, and if the good will of someone’s fellow neighbors or community is outside of this, they assume it’s not a part of the equation. Even though you’re asking the question as someone who’s interested in theory, you may hear this come as a liberal battle cry for more government intervention, yet they don’t consider human action amongst individuals who may actually have some compassion for other people. “Well, of course we need a monopoly of force over our citizens. They aren’t going to look out for each other, that would be crazy! If they don’t have money, they can’t afford protection, and no one cares about the poor, simple as that.” That’s generally how they seem to think.
