This has been troubling me a little in the back of my head lately. Libertarians stress the defence of private property rights from which all others flow, along with self ownership and these are well justified intellectually and make sense for a whole host of intuitive, political and economic reasons. However, there always may be people, and definitely they are in the vast majority right now, that do not and would not accept the implementation of a full regime of property rights.
It seems to me this could easily lead to a situation of violent confrontation or worse, so it makes me wonder whether such a libertarian society could be stable or even “metastable,” as initial rights valuations carried out to punish property rights violoaters could lead to additional retributions from those who never accept these principles producing a vicious cycle and further breakdown in society, along with coercion and conflict in the efforts to maintain such a system. It also makes me wonder whether the path towards a libertarian, stateless society could be far more difficult than anyone has really conceived, as long as an almost impossibly wide paradigm shift in modern ideology does not occur. On the other hand I don’t think this would seem to justify the existence of a minimal state to protect proerty rights and “keep the heathens at bay,” since I think such a belief in its nature is naive.
Guess I’m feeling a little pessimistic and deflated lately… Perhaps on an optimistic note, I can share I had a fascinating conversation with a young muslim entrepreneur who grew up near my hometown about the nature of Sharia law, who told me as soon as anyone would try to implement it centrally on others it would no longer strictly be Sharia. The guy was practically an anarchocapitalist without knowing it! It made me think of the analogy Mustafa Akyol made with Sharia and the evolution of the old English common law in his recent lecture.
Yes, the mob empowers the Prince. Without the mob, the Prince is powerless and the entire State collapses. So the stupid, immoral and ignorant ideas and values held by the mob play an integral role in maintaining State power.
A minimal State is just a gateway to the globe-strangling squid Leviathan that we see today.
It has to by its very nature. People act in accordance with the law because either 1) it is the way they would have acted anyway, or, 2) they are coerced by threat of punishment if the violate the law. If everyone were a (1), there would be no need for a system of law because everyone’s values and actions would already be aligned. A non-coercive law would have to be something like “Every living citizen must have a heartbeat.”
That’s the lecture. Thanks for your response Clayton. I don’t need any convincing that minimal states are the best way to grow parasitic states. The history of many of the world’s empires including especially the current US government provide more than ample historical illustration of this phenomenon to accompany the argumentative literature on reasons for why this ends up being the case on this site and elsewhere.
Perhaps on an alternative note, even considerations of military strategy, defensive and evasive tactics against those who would wish to suppress free or anarchic societies might well be a fruitful course of study. But antagonism would only fuel discontent… The path to a libertarian society doesn’t look straightforward. It also seems to me unavoidable that it would require for maintainance a degree of violence and coercion to deter property violaters, though not anywhere near the mess we have today.
I don’t think so. What is certainly true is that there will have to be a security and defense industry which specializes in the use and threat of violence in order to defend property rights. However, this need not entail any aggression or coercion. In fact, it is only when the security/defense producers become the beneficiaries of a moral carte blanche from a large segment of the population that they become empowered to be a State. I believe it is absolutely possible to have a social order which incorporates violence as a valid and legitimate activity when used in specific ways. I reject the Amish view that the most extreme moral sanction is shunning. You can’t have property rights without a willingness to use violence if necessary.
To add to what Clayton said, I know that Molyneux has written a lot about shunning as a means of punishment for those which don’t obey the “rules.” Being an outcast would be incredibly costly, and yet not be coercive.
It’s not costly enough to deter tyranny. You can’t shun someone who has become un-shunnable (i.e. a Prince) so I don’t think shunning is sufficient. Outlawry, on the other hand, is much more powerful since violent retribution against an outlaw is not necessarily unlawful. Al Capone wouldn’t be too concerned about being shunned. But he might get a little nervous at the idea of being outlawed.
I think Clayton hit the nail on the head. Kings, rulers, governments, despots, etc only have the power that the citizenry gives them. In order for a libertarian society to emerge there must be (as you pointed out) a radical shift in the way people think. If this radical shift occurs then to answer your question NO I don’t believe coercion would be necessary to enforce the rule of law. I think the heavy costs related to boycotts and other forms of ostrcaization would be enough to deter individuals from committing crimes.
EDit: That is not to say crime would vanish forever just that it would make it less likely in my opinion.
That a libertarian society could function only when a vast majority of its constituents agree to uphold private property rights, that’ easy to see. What does not follow form there is pessimism. This just means that only a few cities tops could gather enough private-property minded people to sustain such a society, for the time being. A global revolution is fantasy, but some city going anarchist is a very real possibility.
In time then, the competition between different economic orders and societal attitudes would lead to a slow expansion of anarchist zones. But for now, that’s a fairytale, and a few free cities is all we can hope for (that’s why I never understood what Ron Paul is hoping to achieve by running for POTUS istead of major of a good city).
“People act in accordance with the law because either 1) it is the way they would have acted anyway, or, 2) they are coerced by threat of punishment if the violate the law.”
This seems like a false dichotomy. Why couldn’t people be incented to follow “law” for, say, economic reasons (if you break this law, no one will deal with you any longer or at worst will require larger deposits or insurance or guarantees when dealing with you)?
I am of the opinion that any proposed system that only works if its consituents are experts in the theory of why it should/would work is doomed from the start. You just will never have the bulk of the population be experts in their political system.
“You can’t have property rights without a willingness to use violence if necessary.”
Well then bring on a free market in “government”, because I want no part of yours… You are welcome to it, but “use violence if necessary” sounds like someplace I don’t want to be. I want to live in a civil society where the vast majority of people who are civil - ignore the small percentage of people who will be thugs no matter what their surroundings - deal with each other peacefully. Violence is never an option I am interested in except in the most extreme cases of immediate self-defense from same.
I agree but I think you’ve missed the implication that violence is only necessary in defense of property rights. If you’re being attacked, then your property rights (in the integrity of your body) are being violated and you absolutely have the right to retaliate in kind. The problem lies in deciding what violence is justifiable and that is where a free market in arbitration is so desperately needed. State courts invent all sorts of fairy-tale justifications for State violence and impose their theories on its victims while at the same time rejecting almost any argument an individual may give in using lethal force to defend himself and innocents against the aggression of other private citizens since this is perceived as some sort of “competition” with the police monopoly.
“I agree but I think you’ve missed the implication that violence is only necessary in defense of property rights. If you’re being attacked, then your property rights (in the integrity of your body) are being violated and you absolutely have the right to retaliate in kind. The problem lies in deciding what violence is justifiable and that is where a free market in arbitration is so desperately needed.”
Ok, I think we’re more on the same page then… I was inferring from your original statement that you were kind of exactly the kind of person that you want the free market to protect us from: someone who wants to use violence and wants a broad hand to define “justifiable violence” in the name of “property rights”.
I still think that the “contract” I’ll sign is one that is extremely explicit about violence: it is usable onlyin self-defense of an immediate use of violence. I want my arbitrators to be really, really disciplined about this, precsely for the reasons of slippery slope and slow degradation that you have correcetly identified in the state context.