One of the challenges in talking about anarchy with statists is trying to get them to put aside their notions of how certain problems must be dealt with, because that’s all they’ve been exposed to. They think anarchy is lawlessness, violence, no roads, etc. but that’s because they’re thinking of today’s society minus the existing government. But that’s not really the anarchy we’re talking about. We’re talking about a society where new structures emerge that take on the roles government once had, in a fundamentally different way of course. And most anarchists will try to explain this in detail.
But this post isn’t about the statists not understanding anarchy, it’s the anarchists. Take the subject of intellectual property as an example. Some anarchists believe they’ll be able to freely copy movies, music, software, etc. but I’d say they’re falling into the same trap as the statists. That is, not understanding how a free society might handle such an issue because it’s handled a different way now.
Let’s assume that private defense agencies and courts would not protect IP. The IP owners would still have a tremendous incentive to protect their creations, and they wouldn’t have to depend on the legal system to do it. Some anarchists only look at the IP and patent laws that exist today, but neglect the anti-trust and anti-competitive laws that restrict the ways in which owners can protect their IP through non-violent means. Even in today’s restrictive environment we see companies creating their own solutions that are independent of government. These include end-user contracts, digital rights management, software licensing and activation, watermarking, personalization, and others. In a free market, companies would have even more options in working with suppliers and each other. We constantly argue that government does everything wrong and that private industry can do it better. Why do you think protecting IP would be any different in a free market?
This post isn’t just about IP. It’s about all the little assumptions about anarchy that are made without really thinking about the dynamics of such a society. Illegal drugs is another example. Sure, you can do coke, crack, meth, but maybe you’re health insurance rates go through the roof (as with smoking now). Just because there’s no law doesn’t mean there’s no consequence under anarchy. Personal privacy is another example. It’s possible that your phone, internet, etc. will be tapped in a free market, if that’s what the market demands. If private defense agencies see it as a worthwhile expense, they’ll contract with communication providers to do it. And if consumers prefer the lower prices over privacy, then that’s what you’ll generally have.
The point is listen to yourself. You know anarchy will be different so start thinking more about what that really means.