Courts in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Economics Political Theory
,
101

Plenty of states, if you are using Weber’s definition, don’t give a damn about people’s needs. They are only in it for themselves. One could argue that all states are, but I don’t think thats important here.

The problem with eliminating the state, in my opinion, is this: The state is a monopoly on violence. Due to the division of labor and comparative advantage, certain individuals will be more proficient at violence than others. So it stands to reason that these individuals will be employed for defensive (or offensive) purposes. The market produces soldiers when there is a demand for soldiers. The problem with this is that coercion trumps all other things produced by the market. It is more powerful than gold and more persuasive than literature. All the computers, cars, and washing machines in existence cannot save one man from another man with a gun. Those with the comparitive advantage to produce violence will necissarily rule over others if they are able. To me, the challenge of market anarchism is arriving at a system by which the producers of violence will never be able to arrive at a monopoly.

102

Thanks for the critics, they are very profound. I know, it is contradictory indeed to say that the state is the only possible way to protect our property and life. That’s why I never actually said that. What I suggested is that the state if limited can be a partial solution for this problem. So we have a limited state which is allowed to protect our life and property and nothing else, but we don’t lose the same right, we are allowed to protect our life and property also. I believe Rothbard or Chodorov (I am not sure) or maybe someone else said once that without the income tax socialism (and collectivism, let me append) is impossible, with the income tax it is inevitable, I am sure he is right. But how did we get there, the state has no power except to protect our life and property, how did this power let the state to impose income tax on its citizens. The other thing which leads us inevitably to collectivism is the inflation (which is also a form of tax) and inflation is impossible without fiat money. So how we get there, why do we allow to the state to impose income tax and to counterfeit “money”.

The state’s efficiency in protecting our life and property can be in a range from 0 to 100% depending on many factors. So the important thing is not to believe or to demand from the state to protect our life and property with 100% certainty, because this would be an unreal expectation, and would lead the state to act as an organization of prevention and not as an organization of protection. This would eliminate the state from the business of building roads, regulate commerce, running schools etc. Prevention requires speculation about the future, and as Mises teaches us in his great work Bureaucracy, the state is here strictly to implement the law, not to speculate and not to improvise. As a contrary today we have a state which only consideration about the law is that when they decide to do something (based on speculation and not facts – remember the Iraq war and almost everything else) and there is no existing law about that, they would make a new law so that they can say that what they do is actually according to the law.

The other important thing is that if a state is truly limited it isn’t a monopoly on force because it can’t use force except in a case when someone attacking our life and property, but as I said previously, we have the right to use force as an individual also (self defense).

I would be the happiest person if we can live in a true anarcho-capitalism with competitive private business in every area, without a state. But I’m afraid, that my logic tells me that it isn’t possible, that it is utopia. So I’m looking for the next best answer.

Consider a state as a help for every individual, a help in exactly one “business” protecting life and property. And an individual have the right to refuse help if he think he is better off without it, the state should respect this, because remember the state derives its powers from the rights of the people, and if an individual don’t have a right to impose help on other individual, how does a state come up with that power? A new question needs answer: If it isn’t mandatory (to accept the help from the state) doesn’t that mean that we can have more than one state in one particular geographic area? I have some initial answer, but I am not satisfied with it, so I need to “go back to the drawing table” :slight_smile:

Is this kind of limited state achievable? I believe yes.

103

I think this problem is solved (in an anarcho-capitalist world). Monopoly is possible only by the state. Without a state “natural” monopoly is possible only within a small group. (I believe Rothbard teaches us in the Power and Market about this fact).

The unlimited government (state) doesn’t give a damn about people needs, the “welfare” state is nothing but a farmer who feeds the cows because he need the milk, but does he do that because of the needs of the cows? No way.

The welfare state feeds us with the product of our work in order to be able to take more and more of the results of our work. It is nothing but a coercive economy, in this economy you can’t choose, the transactions are not voluntary.

104

The firs few words from the foreword of Chodorov’s “The Income Tax: Root of all Evil”:

“THIS WAS, to be sure, “the home of the free and the land of the brave.” Americans were free simply because the government was too weak to intervene in the private affairs of the people—it did not have the money to do so—and they were brave because a free people is always venturesome. The obligation of freedom is a willingness to stand on your own feet.”

J. Bracken Lee (Governor of )

I think this explains the ground rules of a limited state. A Constitution without sound money is a hopeless paper. If it gives the state the power to tax and the power to control money, then it isn’t a natural right and moral Constitution, it isn’t a Constitution at all. It gives the very instrument in the hand of the state to make it effectively void instead of the opposite. So what was a reason that the US Constitution was effective for a number of decades? I believe the very fact that nothing can be done in an instant, so time was required to undermine the good intentions of the founding fathers. There is no doubt, that the process started the very first day, and there is no doubt that it will continue, and that following generations would said that our present world (this time) was also a free one, because they world would be much, much more collectivist, totalitarian and freedom will be just a word from a distant past.

105

Another great text about the issue, this time by James Leroy Wilson:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/wilson-james1.html

106

The problem is, how do you keep the users of violence from forming a state? The market produces implements of violence if there is demand for them, and the division of labor produces soldiers, but violence does not play nice with markets. I think this is why states formed in the first place, those with the swords (or guns) would rather be the enslaver than the employee. Nowdays, of course, governments use fraud more often than brute force.

107

Yes. I agree that this is the problem. How does one keep the users of violence from forming a State? And the answer is: In an anarchy, you can’t. People may form a State if they desire. But, as proof that we live in a state of anarchy regardless of the formations of oppression called States, I would point out that no State monopoly has ever been perpetual. If States are unable to maintain their organization in perpetuity, then they are not the ultimate form of sovereignty. The sovereignty of the State, ultimately comes from the people who support the State. When the State becomes too oppressive, it will undergo fundamental change or will be disbanded. These are signs that Anarchy is the fundamental state of human nature. As an anarchist, I simply hope that in the future it becomes explicit that this disbanding be peacefully allowed to occur.

States must use more fraud than force. This is true because human action is inalienable; the fundamental right to act is inalienable (which, incidentally, is why no State may ever successfully control a market. To ban transactions will not stop them, it will just hide them from the enforcers, because the right to act is inalienable). No State that uses force without the fraud that its force is legitimate can successfully coerce cooperation. The fraud that they perpetuate is that they are indispensable. This allows States to rule non-contractually; but, in reality, there is not a single State that is in-disposable. And this is the idea that anarchists must perpetuate. Anarchists must fight the urge to support the fraud that the State is necessary. It is not. It is simply a tool for redistribution based upon violence, which isn’t evil in itself, but can become evil if non-contractual. What anarchists must support, is the unlimited right to secede. This is a denial of non-contractual collectivism, and ultimately the denial of the coercive State. The American Revolution and the secession and formation of the Confederate States of America are two examples of action that must be peacefully allowed by contract between the people and its State. By allowed, I mean that a State is a lawful contractual obligation only to the extent that it may be peacefully disbanded by the sovereigns for whom it is erected to protect.

My point: Over time, humans have slowly come to realize that we live in this state of anarchy. The United States is successful today to the extent that it improved the State apparatus to peacefully allow the exercise of many freedoms and rights that were/are oppressed elsewhere - freedoms and rights which are inherent to human cooperation (which becomes slavery without the right to refuse to cooperate). But, if the State apparatus is successful to the extent that it is aligned with the true nature of the world, then Anarchy, where secession and integration are decided by plebiscite, will be the most successful and limited form of government possible. We almost had this form of government with the Federalism of the framers, but the clock was turned back by the Statists during the Civil War. And amendments to the Constitution were passed which made secession punishable by the State. This is the form of government against which the American Revolutionaries justly fought. Anarchists must secede non-peacefully now. We must violate the laws of the State to exercise our just rights. This is why, unless the US allows peaceful secession (it already allows and in many cases unjustly demands integration (Hoppe)) it is non-contractual and carries the seeds of its ultimate destruction. To put it another way - Statist believe that the fundamental form of political power is the State, while Anarchists believe that it is the individual. But, anarchists cannot rationally be against limited forms of contractual government. Even a contractual government must allow the dissolution of the contract if the individual finds the government oppressive or redundant. A State, by nature, is non-contractual. I want a contractual government. I want to right the wrong that was committed during the Civil War. I expound the destruction of the State and the repeal of the 14th Amendment. I ignore laws which violate my rights. I propose that the right to secede be added to the other rights protected by the Constitution. Until these rights are legally protected, the fraud upon which our government currently rests must be exposed. Unfortunately, in the past, this exposure took the creation of a colony halfway across the world from its State. What will it take now?

108

… One would have to distinguish (and define) between a society under a state (or government) and a stateless society. I believe that there is rather no concise difference between the two concepts, but that the difference is rather gradual. There is the possibility that people decide to form a state and I think one needs to address the reasons, why and how the modern state came into being.

I’d agree that social norms are stronger then decrees made by a government. Even if the state/government wasn’t their yet, their still was kind of authority (chiefs, elders, the parents, priests, etc.). Their were also kind of laws (morals, codes of conduct, practices). In my opinion the distinction is rather between the natural, tribal form of society, which is kind of organic on the one hand. And the formalized, rationalized, bureaucratic modern state on the other hand.

My advice would be that we investigate social norms, authority, human behaviour and its origines and functioning first and then deal with the forms of society that are tangible or thinkable.

I don’t think that Praxeology / Human action does distinguish categorically between coerced and voluntary action. It is just that voluntary exchange is favoured over anything related to coercion. Even if someone gets robbed this is usually kind of an exchange. You exchange your purse for being left alone by the robber. Taxes work similar. You are relatively protected against “legal harassment” as long as the officials believe that you have paid your taxes.

… So why did the state emerge in the first place?

… Contracts can be coerced as well. With most states you would have the option to leave the state, reject membership and cancel any further obligations to them.

109

You’re right. Contracts can be coerced and when they are it is an essentially statist move that ought to be quelled with no less than the ferocity and power of the hand of God.

As for having to leave a state, no one should ever have to leave their property because a state threatens to take it. That is coercion and if a state tried to do it to me, I’d sincerely hope, for the sake of their soldiers, they would not bother sending in men; I would send them all back in body bags.

110

Actually both Locke and Jefferson believed that everything that isn’t produced by human labor starts out owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.

Jefferson quotes:

“The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’ . . ..”

“It [generational sovereignty] enters into the resolution of the questions Whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail? Whether they may change the appropriation of lands given . . . in perpetuity? Whether they may abolish the charges and privileges attached on lands . . .? . . . and it renders the question of reimbursement a question of generosity and not of right. In all these cases, the legislature of the day could authorize such appropriations and establishments for their own time, but no longer; and the present holders, even where they, or their ancestors, have purchased, are in the case of bona fide purchasers of what the seller had no right to convey.”

Jefferson accepts the traditional notion that the land and the other resources of the earth belong to all generations in common. He further insists that no generation of citizens, acting individually or collectively, may rightfully prejudice later generations’ equal enjoyment of that land and those resources. If a government or agent of government attempts to convey or define a property interest that would allow the beneficiary to unfairly prejudice the interests of later generations, Jefferson’s view is that said agent exceeds his/her/its authority. Jefferson unequivocally insists that such purported property rights may be revoked by later generations without compensation.

111

Which is why few libertarians take Locke’s homesteading theories as given. Most modify them, as do Rothbardians for instance.

112

Nock via Oppenheimer drew a distinction between the state and governance and what was legitimate and illegitimate authority in use of force.

It was his belief that exclusive use of land was a privilege, as everyone has an equal access opportunity right to occupy what was not created by human labor, that required an obligation to those being excluded in exchange for the backing of the exclusive right by force. If there was no obligation to those excluded, then the exclusive use imposed costs upon those being excluded which was illegitimate force. Requiring an obligation that is non-voluntary upon those excluding is legitimate defensive force. The reason why is because occupying land is not voluntary and if all lands are privately owned, then it is impossible for those persons to have their absolute right of self-ownership upheld.

Now the reason why this defensive force is a territorial interest is because the costs imposed on those excluded from occupying that specific location is spread in proximity to the location in question.

113

The best we can do at this point is to create a system in which it doesn’t matter who legally owns what land or even if they mixed their labor with it, but to insure that no one is economically disadvantaged by the exclusive use.

This is as close as we can come to living in a perfect state of nature. I would add that the other systemic improvement would be one which does not matter who owns the capital - labor will always get it’s full reward.

114

You are confusing personal utility value with market value. They are not the same.

115

All that is needed for distributive justice where everyone’s absolute right of self-ownership is upheld is just to state that local governance as legitimate authority is narrowly constituted to protect life, liberty and labor-based property.

116

What is a market value of a life? I don’t think there is such a thing as a market value, that is just a bad combination of words, I believe there is only a market price, as value is subjective, and a market is collective, therefore can’t determine a value only a price? But I also think, he is confusing value and price.

117

If one labours to improve a certain piece of land, is it not “labour-based property”?

118

Let’s try to avoid the deadly trap, the Austrian school shows us that Adam Smith made a “mistake” (and Marx also made the same mistake), and that the labor theory of value is nonsense. Talking about “full reward” for our labor will lead us to nowhere. Labor service has its price, so if I make something with a higher price on the market, I will be better rewarded and if I work all day hard as hard as I can and I’m making iron tennis balls which has no market price, because nobody want to buy an iron tennis ball, I will get nothing as a reward for my labor service (no matter how hard did I worked).

The other important thing is, who is responsible for the productivity I am able to achieve in what percentage it is my labor and in what percentage it is the capital I am utilize? The capital also earns its part and it is belong to the provider (the owner) of that capital. So labor without capital isn’t worth much. Market should decide the “percentage” of “responsibility and market should reward both side according to this.

The cornerstone of the Austrian school and Mises repeat this infinitely is that the only way we can improve our life and the only way we can be richer is to produce more than we consume and to invest this plus capital in the means of production. So this very fact leads us to the conclusion, that capital needs to earn its market price reward also, because without the capital we save, our labor would be hardly sufficient for anything else but for our surviving.

119

The location that defines a specific piece of land itself is not labor-based property but what is created is now called “capital” not “land”.

120

But we have a little problem, don’t we?

Perfect market conditions with full information known by all participants and no barriers of entry drives the price of goods to cost. This is inherently unstable for the owners of capital so they look to the “political means” (see Nock and Chodorov) as the least effort to satisfy their desires via privileges.