I find anarchy to be animalistic, barbaric, and a terrible state of being
none of those things are in the defintition given by your online etymology dictionary…so…
If there are no rulers, then rules are useless. Someone can take your life and there is nothing anyone can do about it. That’s barbaric.
If there are no rulers, then rules are useless.
that’s not an argument; who is the ruler of chess? can you play games of chess?
In the game of chess, it is self ruled. You each protect yourself from your opponent cheating the rules. If you opponent cheats and you do not catch him at it, then he gains advantage. Which is exactly what happens in anarchy. If you have a ruler, then you have backup and can enforce the rules.
can you have ‘backup’ without the backup coming from a ruler ?
Perhaps, but I don’t know how it would be achieved. Do you?
I have a rough idea.
http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf - chapter 12
http://libertyactivism.info/uploads/6/65/The_Market_for_Liberty_-_Morris_and_Linda_Tannehill.pdf
Thanks for those links.
In Rothbard’s case, if I read him right, he is arguing for private rulers. Which are still rulers.
In Tannehill’s “The Market for Liberty”, I found a couple of quotes:
First quote, “The very word “government” means some men governing - ruling over others.”
And I think this is inescapable. I argue for rules based on property rights and I argue for a state to enforce those rights because I am often inadaquate at protecting myself from unscrupulous people. I don’t agree with a police force to regulate the rules, but for a sheriff to use force against anyone who violates the property rights of others to capture them and force them into restitution.
And the sheriff would necessarily have to use force against some individuals or groups, and that is why the following quote fails:
“The society we propose is based on one fundamental principle:
No man or group of men-including any group of men calling them
selves “the government”-is morally entitled to initiate (that is, to
start) the use of physical force, the threat of force, or any substitute
for force (such as fraud) against any other man or group of men.”
And the sheriff would necessarily have to use force against some individuals or groups, and that is why the following quote fails:
you seem to have confused initiating force with defencive/restitutional force.
I argue for rules based on property rights and I argue for a state to enforce those rights because I am often inadaquate at protecting myself from unscrupulous people.
perhaps you should take more time to read the works slowly and carefully. I can only say that your inadequecy at protecting yourself from unscrupulous people does not directly imply that you should become slave to a monopolist of justice. why not simply engage in division of labour, and just as you are often ‘inadequate’ at supplying yourself with fresh food (you are a brain scientist and have no green fingers, or even land to till) yet the solution is not to institute a monopoly over land and farming under the mere promise that the monopolist will supply you.
I don’t think a binary answer is realistic (possible). The stronger your backup, the more indistinguishable it becomes from your ruler. You can have your dog as backup, or your wife (with a gun), or three neighbors with guns, or pay three strangers with guns, or pay ten strangers with guns. The problem with this sliding scale is:
-
The weaker your backup, the higher your exposure to aggression (on your life and property) from more powerful agents.
-
The stronger your backup, the larger the power (force) difference between you and them, hence the higher the incentive (likelihood) for your backup to become your ruler.
Both ends on this sliding scale are detrimental to your liberty i.e. are exposing you to aggression (coercion), but everyone would prefer to be as left as possible on it (towards weakest necessary backup possible).
From this perspective, anarchy’s viability is inversely proportional to the size of the (power, force) backup that is necessary for maintaining order. The more homogeneous the subjective valuations, societal norms, and convictions are within a community, the smaller the likelihood of conflicts and aggression among agents, which lowers the optimal size of backup everyone needs for a functioning society and brings that society closer to freedom. Explained this way, it seems that individual’s lack of liberty stems from the difference between the valuations, norms, and convictions of that individual and those of the community (the market).
The larger the community (state), the lesser the homogeneity in valuations and norms, the higher the probability of conflict, the larger the size of backup needed for order, the higher the incentive (likelihood) for your backup to become your ruler. The smaller the community (state), the larger the homogeneity, the smaller the backup (power, force) needed for order, the smaller the power (force) difference between you and your backup, the lesser the incentive (likelihood) for your backup becoming your ruler.
The above does not address possible incentive scenarios between communities (states) sporting vastly different (power, force) backups, which is a different bowl of wax altogether.
my short answer z, is that you are still thinking in the statist/monopolist paradigm, that i would only have 1 provided of security and justice services. so that if i want to increase security, my agent gets ever more powerful and dangerous to me. this is moderated if he is in competition.
I don’t have to buy all my milk from one store, in real life i routinely purchase milk from several different stores.
Nir, looks like we’re narrowed down our debate to the issue of whether or not power (force) can be treated as just another good and service in the market. My hang up is that it simply can not – that power (force) markets inevitably converge towards territorial monopolies, nomenclature notwithstanding; a proposition for which I offered logical and empirical substantiation in the Gang Wars thread.
I will quote my unanswered evidence request from that thread here:
“I want examples of free (non-monopolist) markets in power (force) – examples where two or more power (force) “service providers” (gangs, warlords, mercenaries, PDAs, states, etc.) co-exist and peacefully compete on the same territory, just like shoe providers often do.”
The lack of this evidence is daunting.
Where is the confusion? The quote and my response are perfectly clear. Restitutional force is not defense. The quote made no mention of restitutional force. The quote fails on those grounds.
My argument is for property rights. Theft of property is the most serious crime against humanity… especially if it includes bodily harm or loss of life. This is why I argue for property rights… including the right to life. And it is why anarchy fails (no one to enforce the rules). The only reference to entitlements, that I made, is that I cannot adaqutely protect myself or my property from theft by myself. Protection from someone stealing my food from me is quite different than requesting the state to provide me with food.
The state should provide laws protecting my property, and the state should provide rulers (a sheriff) to capture those who violate the rights of others.
This is not as clear cut as you may believe it to be.
If you have someone enforcing rules without consent, you do not have property rights. If you have someone enforcing rules with consent, that is anarchy.
The state can do all of those things, but to expect me to pay for the same state you want, is not freedom. Maybe I want a different setup, different laws, different forms of protection. It is my “right” to choose how I will defend myself and my property or to not defend it at all.
@z
What about the daunting evidence that countries can’t co-exist peacefully?
I agree with that. If no one were there to enforce the rules, every single act of theft or agression would end in violence. Not that it’s wrong to hurt someone if they invade or do something bad to your property or your family, but you know what I mean.
“I want examples of free (non-monopolist) markets in power (force) – examples where two or more power (force) “service providers” (gangs, warlords, mercenaries, PDAs, states, etc.) co-exist and peacefully compete on the same territory, just like shoe providers often do.”
are you aware the private security agents are plentifull? I don’t know if you have nighlife in your town but you may have heard of ‘bouncers’. As far as I know they do not have running battles to dominate entire areas of the city, they satisfy themselves by looking after the interests of their clients on their clients properties.
“I agree with that. If no one were there to enforce the rules, every single act of theft or agression would end in violence. Not that it’s wrong to hurt someone if they invade or do something bad to your property or your family, but you know what I mean.”
How is that different from now? The only difference is the current police have a legal monopoly to use force. If I kill someone and if the cops actually do their job, they’ll come knocking down my door, throw me in handcuffs and throw me in jail. Is that not an act of violence the cops just commited?
Restitutional force is not defense. The quote made no mention of restitutional force. The quote fails on those grounds.
yes it is. whilst you are separated from your property by a villain you are in a state of invasion/attack, this automatically put you in the position of one who is on the defence of themselves and their property. restitution is an act of defence. restitution when concluded makes you whole. the attack on you concludes when your goods are returned to you.
Just curious, do you think the CIA would still be fighting in secret wars if it were a private company? Pretend two major security companies arise for the entire United States. They both represent 25 states, but the states are scattered; it’s not like a east-west division. What would happen if Company I decided to bomb Russia? How would Russia know who to retaliate against considering the clients of Company II did nothing wrong, yet they’re scattered amongst the clients of Company I?