Thing is, you’re assuming that the “good” agencies will be able to eliminate competition from the “bad” agencies by “bringing up charges”. This is a limitation on legal competition.
No, mustang19, I think he is asserting that the laws of economics and the model for human action will hold (and they will). That is, the competition will eliminate itself, after performing poorly and against the rights of others (as a defense agency in an ancap society would be contracted for). That is, that will break their own contract, and thus, lose potential for future customers. And by bringing charges, IMO of an ancap society, the accused agency has two choices: go to court willingly to try to clear their name and not lose potential future business (but will likely lose) or refuse to go to court and lose potential future business by demonstrating dishonesty and uncivility along with essentially confirming their breach of contract(s). You’re still using “law” in the statist sense, where companies bring up (frivolous) charges to attempt to get the government to use force to stop further commercial activity. No one would attempt to forcibly stop commercial activity in an ancap society.
You’re implying that, once these agencies lost business from clients, they would go bankrupt (run out of money). But they don’t need clients for money; they can pillage like warlords do.
Here’s another problem. The aggressing firm can chose which court it is tried at, because under ancap-ism, the defendant choses the court. The firm can chose a court which promises to render them innocent and allows them to continue pillaging. How are the other agencies going to get rid of that court?
And the general agreement among ancaps (and most other libertarians) is that those would-be victims have a right to defend themselves and their property, with deadly force if necessary. If some group becomes so antagonistic to people’s rights and violates contracts so frequently, people will greet them at the door with a shotgun. If it got bad enough, the community might just have themselves an old-fashioned romp and expel the band of thieves or capture and hang them. The band of thieves (as you have said they will devolve into) will stay in that community or interact wih any other in a negative manner at their own risk.
Okay. The problem is that this only works as long as the community is able to muster enough military force to win. If the rogue agency is better organized or equipped, that might not work.
Assuming that some members of the community restrict courts which practice an aggressive law system, rather than a natural law system, this is also a restriction on consumer choice and competition.
I didn’t know the defendant chooses the court. Did you just make that up, mustang19?
Anyway, in all of your ridiculousness today, I have asserted that, IMO, if their is a dispute between two or more parties, it can only go to court if all parties agree to the court/judge/mediator. And courts that ruled in favor of a party that seemed guilty to all other observers will, agin through the voting o the consumer in the free market, will lose future potential business, and be even less likely to be mutually aggress upon by two or more disputing parties.
That was my understanding. Who else choses the court? The wronged party? What if the wronged party choses a court which promises to convict 100% of cases brought to it? How is that court eliminated?
If all parties must agree to the choice of court, what happens if they can’t agree on a choice of court? Does the case never reach trial?
True, and you wish to have a central government (like the US) with tons of extortion money (like the US) and the largest and most advanced military in the world (like the US) to rule over you? You think your rights or your property or your life is more easily defendable against that than a (quite unlikely) band of thieves with considerably less resources, firepower, manpower, and experience? Just stop already, and think before you set the pins up that liberty keeps knocking down.
I won’t even respond to your second statement, as it has been addressed dozens of times today by myself and others. You are misrepresenting the way economics in a free society works, or refuse to read and digest anything anyone posts. You just repeat yourself to no end, pretending your queries haven’t been addressed over and over again.
We’re not talking about a random band of thieves, but one (or possibly multiple) defense legal agencies with similar equipment (and much more efficient at their work as free market enterprises). The US Army is an ineffectual and harmless statist bureacracy.
That query was not brought up yet in this thread. If both parties cannot agree on a judge, what happens to the case?
Yes. This is also why consumer confidence is huge in the free market. If you feel like someone is shady, you may choose not to do business with them, realizing there is no guaranteed certainty provided to you. Again, the consumer is the biggest benefactor of the free society. Business is the servant; consumers are the masters. But you don want that, right? You prefer a system that more closely resembles what we have today, right?
I’m not sure. I’m trying to figure out how aggression is going to be prosecuted. It appears people have no legal recourse when the defense agencies start plundering and fighting each other.
I can see you see your arguments hold no water as you begin to rely on ever more ridiculous statements.
I am guessing a few countries and their people in the Middle East would resent you saying such a thing.
Are you implying that the US Army is an example of government efficiency? It can’t even run Iraq.
You are unsure of how there will be authority in an anarchist society? So you are trapped in a contradiction you put yourself in?
What are you going to do if the US Armed Forces and NATO begin attacking the citizens of the US under the authority of the federal government? Surely you see you won’t have any legal recourse there either, although up until that (hypothetical) moment, you are under the illusion that you have that certainty. You are more likely to be less prepared in that hypothetical than the hypothetical of a free society with no authority of one man (or group of men) over any other man (or group of men). You’re still blinded by the illusion of the safety and protection and guarantees from your master, huh?
True, but there’s always a lot more people whom would like to be left alone and purchase security than there are people willing to become bank robbers.
Looking at the security-state of the world, you have pirates in Somalia preying upon ship in the water, and they’re able to finance mere skiffs with rifles and some medium-scale weaponry. The weaponry provided against them by freedom and peace-loving people of the world sent out entire navies, destroyers, and high-scale tech to take on the pirates and discourage future piracy.
So, in an ancap society, if a band of outlaws forms and begins preying, the would immediately raise the demand in that region for security services, thereby raising the price, thereby immediately surging supply, and thus any area plagued by bandits would immediately find a hundred reputable firms advertising in that region for security services to take down the bandits and protect people.
Also, you’re assuming that an ancap society would have complete freedom of travel and association as with modern societies. In actual fact, an ancap society would have virtually no property in common, no community property, and its travel routes too would be privately owned. Once a bandit group is identified, the can simply be denied entry. If they try to force their way in, again security can be called to deal with them.
The great thing is, in an ancap society you’d have much more security specialization than in our current society. Not only would you have cheap malls cops, professional police, and SWAT, you’d have many grades between, as people required, and it would be provided for much more cheaply than at present.
It’s not hard to imagine an anti-banditry force specifically designed to take out low-grade banditry.
So, while you’re right that any powerful group could simply become bandits and demand money out of a populace, there’s quite a few assumptions built into that and quite a few mitigating factors. the challenge is to know what weight to place on these factors.
In essence, it’s like you’re talking to someone who wants to invent the world’s first bank, and he’s saying that they’ll keep all their money in a vault! And you’re saying, ‘well what’s gonna stop the bank owners from just stealing all your money and walking away’? or ‘if you keep money in a vault, bankrobbers will appear and take it all and no one will trust banks anymore.’
These things do happen, but they’re rather rare, and there are forces in society countering them.
Most people will remain law abiding even in a situation in which there is no oversight. Because a great majority will uphold law and order, and security services will be available, factors in society exist which will stop and prevent banditry.
And the amount of money a community can bring to bear to stop banditry is likely far, far larger than the amount of capital bandits can bring to bear on banditry. Thus, the bandits will always be outgunned. For every single bandit group that forms, there’ll probably be hired several security services specifically and at least one by the community at large to bring them to justice.
Also, you’re assuming there’s no legal structure in place. In the mincap society I’m piecing together, individual communities would form micro-jurisdictions facilitating voluntary community action. Thus, if a bandit group hit within one community, the community could go into lockdown and prevent non-community members from entering which collectively and voluntarily hiring a security group to take care of the problem generally. In fact, most communities would already have a contract with police-providing firms and would simply sick them on the bandits. If these firms could not do the job or couldn’t expand fast enough to deal, the community could hire adjunct or specialist firms for the time being. Or citizens of that jurisdiction could walk away to another jurisdiction whose security practices are more mature.
So, for a whole host of considerations, I simply refer you to the movie “Seven Samurai,” and remind you that the citizens of that town were exceedingly poor 
No, re-read what you said that I quoted. The army has an effect (although not necessarily the one that is publicly stated as a goal) and causes harm.
So while they cannot “run Iraq,” they can destroy villages, impede trade, kill and injure millions, etc.
There won’t be, as far as I can tell. Unless the private defense agencies decide they should be the authority.
Saying “the US government is bad” is not the same as saying “private defense agencies are good”.
I get that.
However, say that the bandits find a legal agency (or micro-jurisdiction) to justify their actions. There would then be a conflict between jurisdictions.
If that were true, political stability would not be problem in many areas of the world without a central government. In the example you gave (Somalia), the balance is not very favorable to law and order.
Excellent post, Anenome! (;
And I point out further, again, that what I was describing what and ANCAP society, as mustang19 continues to talk of too, though incorrectly. I do support the truth that a MINCAP society could have agreed upon laws, or legal recourse for breach of contract. And the point is, people would be free to join/form a MINCAP society or an ANCAP society… Hell, keep your STATIST society if you wish, just don’t force me or others into it.