Could anarchy work in human society?

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
81

Why wouldn’t they? It is their job to resolve disputes. There would be any number of firms available whose job it is to resolve disputes between primary dispute resolution organizations.

But in the (ridiculous, to me) scenario that they could not find a resolution, they would probably drop the case, and leave the disputing parties to seek other council. And then they would be marked as incompetent in resolving disputes, and go out of business.

More likely, if such a situation were likely to happen, they would catch it beforehand and refuse to try the case.

82

Ego, did you read the entry from the link I provided?

-Jon

83

Macfall, what if two parties refused to agree upon an arbitrator or a court?

84

Again, why would they? That would be like McDonalds refusing to sell fast food.

There would be plenty of arbitors to choose from - thousands, perhaps. If they are so inept at dispute resolution that they couldn’t agree on any of those, then they suck very hard at what they do and would quickly go out of business.

If you’re trying to lead me into saying that they would fight, so we need a government to fall back on, it won’t work.

85

To add on to linked materials, here is an article (from a post-objectivist p.o.v.), which I skimmed earlier @ work and found interesting (it also addresses the arbiter matter).

Since I only skimmed it for signs of the arbitrator argument, this is more so food for thought, really, but it should be worth reading, methinks.

http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html

86

I just read it; it is the first libertarian text I’ve ever read!

Still, he doesn’t address my concern. I agree with him entirely that a free-market of courts will produce fairer outcomes; in fact, I strongly emphasized my support for several competing courts from which individuals can voluntarily choose.

Unfortunately, when dealing with a case in which neither party can come to any agreement regarding which court or legal system to use, one party will be forced (not necessarily unfairly, but forced nonetheless) into a court or legal system against his/her will (or, of course, the alleged crime will go unpunished). That’s not a free-market at all!

Considering that inevitably, in many cases, individuals will be forced into using a particular court or legal system against their will, the question becomes, “which one?”. That’s why a voluntarily-funded default or “fallback” court is necessary to avoid different individuals being forced into different courts (and having different laws applied to different individuals).

87

You’re advocating forcing people to patronize a given court in the name of avoiding people being forced to patronize a given court. Talk about double-speak! You’re basically advocating a supreme court.

88

Individuals would only be forced under my system in the same scenarios they would be forced under your system.

89

Firstly, I don’t propose a singular “system”, I propose free competition. That’s the whole point. Secondly, I don’t advocate anyone being forced to patronize or associate with any given organization, since that would violate libertarian meta-ethics. Noone is “forced” to associate with or join a given organization in a free society.

90

We aren’t dealing with cases of free competition or free association, though. Did you catch my reply to Jon?

91

The final recourse is to violence. Is that what you’re looking for? It’s not that hard, if there is a dispute, people either agree or they fight. That truth precedes any notion of how to organize a society, and is the basic reality any system has to deal with. The entire question of anarchism vs statism is which one minimizes the latter. If you expect to find a system that changes the nature of reality such that only one of those alternatives is even possible, you’re going to be searching a long time.

Jeez, it’s like you’re asking “what if a person can’t afford food? What if he can’t get any, if there isn’t any to be had, if his mouth is sewn shut so he can’t eat it, if his stomach is stapled completely shut? Huh, what then? He’d STARVE!!!”

No sherlock. Eat or starve is the basic problem of being a living organism. Everything else is a question of how to eat, and not starve. All the way up to free markets. The same goes to anything else of value that people seek, including not being murdered.

92

So why is my system wrong?

93

I assume your system is a single top level court? Here’s why its wrong. In addition to the other reasons cited here, it has one overriding flaw:

It elimates violence as the ultimate recource.

Wait, that’s not quite right. Actually, it claims to eliminate violence as the ultimate recourse. It would be bad enough if it was true, the fact that it can’t possibly do what it claims makes it even worse.

94

My system creates a voluntarily funded fallback/default court; how is your system superior? I don’t claim to eliminate violence; violence is inevitable.

95

Which is only possible if agreement to it is unanimous (else it’s not strictly voluntary), thereby voiding the very premise on which the need for it was based.

But, if you can get everyone to agree to it, go for it. No harm in that.

96

Histhasthai, you aren’t thinking this through. How is your system better than mine? How is it different? Think about it. [:)]

97

How is that? People don’t have to support it financially if they don’t want to then? Okay, but then it might not get enough funds. But it’s the “default” court, meaning that people have to turn to it if they can’t agree on a court or arbiter or mediator. But why to do they have to turn to this default court? And who will make them do so? Notice that by setting up a default court you’re setting it outside of free competition, giving it a privileged position in the market, which will likely result in increasing costs and corruption and decreasing quality of service. How does it get this default status? Is it forced on people? Or are you envisioning every single person voluntarily signing on to this idea to set up a default court? I don’t see that happening, so you’ll end up having to force people most likely. But if you force them to use a particular court, you’re essentially violating their rights (or at least the rights of the innocent party).

Now, I know what you’re going to say. What if two parties in a dispute can’t agree on a court? Then one party might employ force on the other party to get the result he thinks is just. Well, that may happen on occasion. It’s called vigilantism. Sometimes it will have a just result, sometimes it won’t. If party A had violated the rights of party B, thus creating the dispute, then if party B exacts proportionate restitution from party A through vigilantism then the result is most likely a just outcome. The problem with vigilantism is that it is less likely than a formal libertarian polycentric legal system to result in a just outcome due to various types of human error. I do think that people in a libertarian society would have a moral obligation to use some part of the libertarian legal system to resolve their disputes. That said, I prefer an occasional spate of vigilantism to your proposed monocentric, probably rights-violating “Supreme Court.” I don’t think the dillemma you pose, of two parties to a dispute not being able to agree on a third party arbiter, is likely to be a common problem. There are a number of incentives that will be at work to encourage them to agree on one: cost, security, reputation, etc. People who develop a reputation of being unable or unwilling to use some part of the polycentric libertarian legal system to resolve their disputes will probably come to face enormous social and economic pressure and may be ostracized, black listed, etc.

I’ll also note that you misused the concept of free competition when you claimed that vigilantism, one party bypassing the legal system and employing force on another, violates free competition. I don’t see how it does. It doesn’t prevent any private courts, arbitration or mediation firms, or security firms from competing with one another. One or both parties is just choosing not to make use of one of several (or many) service providers. As I said, anyone who makes a habit of this will probably suffer in the long run.

Btw, my preference is to retain the standard neutral connotation of ‘coercion’. The term aggression is better used for the threat or use of initiatory physical force (if you prefer not to use this entire phrase) because it already has the connotation of being initiatory.

Ego, while your proposed default court might in principle be possible on a voluntary basis, I don’t think it likely to happen on anything but a local scale in some places (but not in others). It’s also very likely to require institutionalized aggression (i.e., rights-violations) to be implimented and maintained, especially on a large scale. Being a monocentric system I see it as a dangerous seed of a future state. Certainly if you’re proposing people be aggressed into using your default system, then it cannot be called libertarian or anarchic.

98

Right.

99

Geoffrey, the only times that individuals would be forced to use the fallback court under my system are the very same instances that individuals would be forced to use a particular court under yours system.

My system doesn’t infringe upon voluntary transactions between individuals; if two individuals decide that they want to use a Catholic court system, that’s up to them. However, in the case that two individuals can’t decide upon a particular court, neither individual has the right to compel the other to go to any court other than the fallback court.

100

If your system is voluntary, in both funding and participation, then it’s no different than mine.

If not, mine is better, first, because it is not a system. Not one system imposed on everyone, it is a set of principles under which any number of systems can be designed and freely chosen.

Second, your system initiates force, not incidentally, but as an inherent quality of what you are proposing. Mine does not. Even if the worst happens, and the parties resort to violence, there is still no initiatory force involved beyond the original crime. Yours leaves the possibility that both parties end up wronged.

Third, your system creates a market distortion. It masks the true cost of not coming to a peaceful agreement, making the court of last resort more likely than the violence of last resort in my system. Market distortions lead people to make bad decisions, because they are deprived of the information needed to make good ones.

Fourth, it concentrates power in an unaccountable body.

Fifth, it issues fiat decisions. Even if the decision is the correct one, it is still fiat, since the judges are not subject to market forces, therefore are deprived of information needed to render a sound verdict.

Sixth, it is a magnet for people who prefer to work outside the constraints of markets.

Seventh, the judges will have to be chosen politically, since there is no market-constrained entity with the responsibility for making correct choices.

Eighth, it is a monopoly, being unconstrained by market forces.

Ninth, it distorts the market in another way, in that it will cause people to devote resources to influencing the court rather than producing value to trade with others.

Tenth, it creates a commons.

Eleventh, it will require an administrative branch to enforce its decisions, otherwise it’s completely pointless.

Twelfth, it’s distorted, misinformed, force initiating, collective, fiat, political, monopolistic, centralized, administered-by-shady-characters-who-like-to-work-outside-the-constraints-of-markets, unaccountable, political decisions will inevitably lead to unintended consequences, creating further disputes, distortions, force initiation, monopoly, centralization, and politics. And lawyers. The only remedy for this, short of abolishing the thing, will be for it to assume additional powers in an attempt to undo the consequences of its existing powers.

Unlucky thirteenth, numbers two through twelve add up to a growing, power-hungry, collective, misinformed, distortion creating, force initiating, political, administered-by-shady-characters-who-like-to-work-outside-the-constraints-of-markets, rule-by-fiat, monopolistic, unaccountable state.

Then even the flimsy defense of “but it’s volutarily funded” is out the window.