In debating market anarchist legal theory, one of the major objections I encounter (after exhausting the normal, more blatantly fallacious ones) is the idea that The Prisoners’ Dilemma situation would prevail, and drive providers of defense and justice to conspire to become a despotic state.
I usually don’t pay it much mind, because I believe that just about any game theory model assumes heavey cartelization of industry, which of course would be extremely rare in a free market. The trick then lies in convincing my opponent that the state is the origin of most cartelization.
I am interested in what you people have to say about the concept. Feel free to share any arguments you have had along those lines. Thanks!
I don’t think that can happen because there is no State present to provide a monopoly over defense and justice. With these two things operating on the free market a defense agency that is abusing its customers will soon lose them and the revenue to continue operation. A private court that is known for making lopsided judgements will soon lose customers as well and go out of business. Say you have an insurance company that, as part of your insurance agreement, provides for a defense agency and a court. If the insurance company continues to employ these two agencies, even after their abuses have been made known then the stock holders will put pressure on the company as the customers began to leave to go to other providers.
Even if some criminal gang decided to establish some totalitarian gang-rule state there would be resistance from the people of the area. With voluntary militias and defense agencies attacking the gang they would soon lose power and the ability to continue.
I think this objections has alot of validity. This is basically how the state forms in the first place. The private producers of ajudication services decide to exclude competition. The only thing that would prevent this is if the majority of the public didn’t see this or the existence of the state as legitimate. The only thing which could bring about an anarchist society in the first place.
That would not only require an economic majority of providors who are both willing and able to cooperate in such a manner, it would also require them to be able to suppress any dissenters. AND it would require their ability to forbid their customers from leaving. AND it woud require that their customers be poor, weak and cowardly.
That’s not likely.
The state is not implied in human nature, nor is it an economic paradox. It is what is left of mankind’s barbaric, cannibalistic past, and when we grow out of it we’ll have a peaceful, functioning anarchy.
Exactly. What people often over look is that the State exists only because people consent to being ruled. This is why the argument that anarchy will lead to a State is not valid.
People are confused by democracy. They think that elected governments are the only states that receive popular support, but all States do. The form of the State changes with the ideology of the population. If most people in a population want a monarchy, thats the form the State will take.
The pseudo-consensual nature of the state is why wars of “libertarian” to overthrow a state are always illegitimate. I like to use the wife beating analogy.
A man hitting his wife is a violation of the NAP, however, since the wife that is victim only she is able to determine her husbands punishment. And one can not assume implied consent to defend the wife from the husband. In fact, the wife choosing to remain with the husband actually implies that she consents to the beatings. If I was to invade their home and beat the husband against the wife’s will, I would be violating both their rights.
If people did not consent to their government they would destroy it themselves. Obviously individuals are entitled to defend themselves from their State, but they are not entitled to defend their neighbor against his will.
Whilst game theory has its merits, it is one of the most abused concepts in economics. What this objection neglects is that markets are dynamic, fluid entities, and not just one off hit and run events. Cartels are inherently unstable, as there is every incentive both from within and outwith to reap the profits enjoyed by the cartel’s participants.
I haven’t read this book yet, but it deals specifically with game theory applied to anarcho-capitalist society, and how situations like thep risoners dilemma change in a dynamic setting as opposed to a static one. I’m planning on ordering it soon. You might find it interesting:
Are you sure its reference is specifically market anarchism, and not anarchism in general? From this other work of his (which “rejects” the possibility of provision of law and order by firms), I doubt it. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a prejudiced “anarcho”-communist or something of that sort.
I’ll look into it more, I found the book referenced in a mises.org article that was arguing against democracy in favor of individual anarchism, and he attacks the public goods theory in the book. Maybe he provides the market justification accidentally? I’m not really sure atm but I have to go to class.
Off topic question- what exactly is the difference between market anarchism and autarchism?