I see two main problems here:
- Minarchists will not accept AnCap private courts because they make the same mistake statists do when they look at AnCaps in terms of regulation (which has been discussed in another thread): AnCaps are not against regulation. They are against a forceful and monopolistic state system of regulation. So they don’t simply want to end the FDA. They expect (as will very likely happen) that there will be private agencies checking up on companies on a non-aggressive basis. Alternatively, consumers will simply buy from companies which promise to put labels on their foods and allow open inspections of their facilities.
In the same line of reasoning, simply because there is no state monopoly on the justice system, it doesn’t mean that there will be no justice system. It will simply be a private one.
We know that we’d like some concept of “justice.” However, we know that we will not be able to achieve perfect justice, as we are all humans and are in some way flawed. Thus, the argument boils down to the best way of achieving justice. We have two options:
-
Have a state which decides what justice is, rigid in its structure and difficult to abolish if it becomes tyrannical
-
Have private courts decide what justice is, with courts failing if they do not garner enough customers (by being unjust)
Since we are now discussing the practical aspect, we generally know that a free-market approach beats a centralized one (though I argue that the justice system today is hardly centralized (which again proves decentralization)).
Hence, we choose a free market court system.
Now, this is where problem number 2 comes in (the flaw in AnCap thought):
- Any form of authority only exists because of its perception in the minds of people. Hence, the state only exists because we believe that 1) it must 2) it simply cannot go away 3) it would hurt is if we tried to disregard it.
Since the state exists, then we do believe in its authority and are voluntarily accepting it. Ah, you would say, we are hardly accepting it. The state has a monopoly on force, so it is forcing us! But stop and think: who gives it the monopoly on force? Not some all-powerful God which backs the state up. Simply the perception of people. A “monopoly” implies that it is completely impossible to break up the force (or that it is de facto the only player, but that doesn’t apply, as there is plenty of violent perpetration every day). The state is not some “laws of physics” monopoly on force. It can in fact be perceived as a private court + police system. It’s just that no one has realized that we do in fact live in AnCap (or more like An). So the perception of a state (and thus a “laws of physics” force governing us (indeed, as minarchists would like)) is flawed. We are voluntarily buying into the idea of the state. A private police force under AnCap which has grown so powerful that it is the only one left is no different from the current state.
Neither are “unbreakable” monopolies. In fact, the evidence of different nations existing and fighting wars amongst each other is proof that indeed the state is a private organization kept alive by nothing else than our belief that it is a “law of physics” monopoly.
This makes me quite disenchanted with anything.
Also, besides this point, I still have a question about AnCap:
In statism, the state forces you to come to court if you are being sued. Who does this in AnCap? Is it done?