I’m trying to learn more about the views of Anarchists. I consider myself a Minarchist in the way I consider the U.S. Founding Fathers to have been Minarchists. Thus, the question. If you and I enter into a contract, and I breach the contract, how are your contractual rights enforced? In other words, how does the Anarchist ensure that he gets the benefit of his bargain?
I guess that the most common answer would be that all arguments over contracts are left to the arbitration, insurance and security companies, that are providing the service of protection and justice.
I imagine that reputation would play a very important role in a real free-market. That is, you’d better contract with people you know will keep their side of the bargain. The idea is to prevent breach of contract.
So the arbitrators, insurance and security companies would have executive branches with powers of enforcement? And is that power to enforce given to those entities through the parties’ contract, thereby making it voluntary enforcement? What happens if the breaching party refuses to recognize their power of enforcement even though he agreed to it by the terms of the contract? Are there any consequences imposed, or does the free market supply the consequence (i.e. people will hear about him and refuse to do business with him)?
There are no “rights” under anarchy. But most individuals have the biological tendency to prefer peaceful exchange instead of violence. Therefore, they would natually enforce contracts using private defence agencies. Most individuals natually have the incentive to peacefully exchange goods between individuals. The more they exchange, the more they trust each other; thus stealing would impose harm to both parties. The free market has the incentive to enforce agreements without a divine force. Customers attending resturants would naturally have a rational incentive to pay tips to the waiter–there is not contractual agreement between the waiter and the customers. Employees have the incentive to pay laborers higher if they work hard. They don’t need agreements. Students would pay teachers if their teacher teaches them. An individual would probably subscribe to multiple private defence agencies under anarchy. He wants multiple smaller private defence agences to use checks-and-balanaces against each other, to prevent one private defence agency from dominating the individual.
Then I’m confused. What are the private defense agencies enforcing or defending?
I agree, but fraud will inevitably occur and some parties will inevitably breach their contracts. If their are no rights, as you say, the defense agencies will be powerless. How does a defense agency have the power to regain what was lost? By force? Does “might make right” in anarchy?
These are legimate questions so I hope you don’t feel I’m attacking your position. I am, however, mulling over what I see as inconsistencies and/or weaknesses in order to test the theory for my own benefit. I’ve seen that a lot of people on this forum have evolved from Minarchists to Anarchists, etc. and I’m trying to identify the reasoning.
There are two likely scenarios. The two parties are customers of the same protection/insurance company or two different companies.
If they are both customers of the same company then the provider’s arbitration division would settle the dispute. Not much different then how the law works today, however, the necessities of competition in the provision of protection/insurance would ensure much more just decisions. A company would need a reputation for satisfying both parties in a dispute, or it would not be competitive. The lack of competition in justice is what creates today’s legal system where no one wins.
If both parties belonged to different companies, then both would refer the dispute to their company. The two companies would arbitrate on behalf of their customers, and each company would have to make a fine balance between satisfying their own customer and not harming their relation with the other company. The economics of violence ensures that disputes, except the most grave, will be settled peacefully.
P.S.
And individuals would not circumvent the legal system for fear of increasing their insurance payments, or even becoming unable to find a company willing to cover them.
As far as I can tell, market-anarchism is based on full recognition of natural/individual rights…
They do whatever the subscriber wants them to do. Individuals would ultimately collaborate together and come up with peaceful solutions to fraud. They would eventually become so dependant of each other that fraud would hurt both parties. “Rights” are subjective. People interpret differently of what is considered a “right.” Yes, there may be more violence in anarchy.
Not true at all. The idea of market-anarchism is to minimize violence as far as it’s humanely possible.
After this significant paradigm shift of abolishing the state apparatus takes place. I predict(though I can only speculate) that new mechanisms of insurance and reputation based incitaments would be constructed in such society. Like the anarchistic society that exists through the internet reputation system likewise that exists on online auctions would become in demand. So that people can asses the risks of doing business with someone.
In such society people would be much more interested in insuring themself from brooken contracts like they insure themself from other destroyed property. So there is really no need to enforce a contract. First of all a contract is built upon the understanding that the exchange is mutually beneficial. If the subjective value of one party changes and he walks away with only half of the trade done. I would get restituted through my insurance company and the causer of this would drop marks in reputation.
This is how it is currently dealt with in the anarchistic market of the internet who knows what efficiency boost for dealing inbetween people will evolve in the future.
As Juan said, market anarchism is predicated on natural rights/deontology (although consequentialist/contractarian arguments are also often used in its favour.) Libertarian seems to be a moral nihilist (or perhaps subjectivist) of sorts. Most libertarians are not.
What happens when the arbitration proceedings fail?
But the insurance company, standing in the shoes of its customer, would still want the benefit of its customer’s bargain. An insurance company would not just pay its customer’s claim. It would seek indemnification from the breaching party. Thus, although insurance protects the customer, it does not answer the question regarding enforcement of the contract.
What about fraud. I understand mutually beneficial exchanges, but the defrauded contracting party (and his agents, i.e. insurance/protection companies) will seek protection of their own rights in one way or another.
needs protection.
But that is only part of the recourse. The defrauded party also has recourse against the breacher through the courts.
You mean what person has the final say and can bring violence upon any person who disagrees with his decision?
I belive I can clarify what is meant with there are no rights in an anarchic society.
You as an individual has no default agreed upon rights with other people in your society. However an anarchistic society would be evolving from some of todays modern societies and hence still have the concept of rights however fussy such concept may be. Market anarchists believes that human nature’s urge to own their beloved proerty and would result in a great respect for the Non-Agression-Principle as people interact on a voluntary basis as just like most individual human interactions are today.
People with different understanding of rights would form on a voluntary basis societies that recognize however they choose to organize their society with the rights that would follow from such agreements. Respecting their neighbour prefered way of life without interfering in his daily affairs and intentions unless agressed upon.
They aren’t. Market Anarchists claim they’re protected by voluntary arbitration, which is clearly absurd.
It’s not difficult to follow Nozick’s argument that market anarchism would eventually lead to a “monopoly” on either land, defense, or arbitration.
First of all, the benefits of such a monopoly are so substantial because of economies of scale.
Second of all, once such a natural monopoly has formed, it ceases to be “anarchy.”
Rothbard’s claim that Anarchists need a “constitution” to avoid chaos seems to invoke the social contract – one of Nozick’s key premises.
Provided that governments are minimal and operate on the basis of voluntary funding, it’s difficult to see what the benefits would be of “smashing the state.”
Many Anarchists I’ve spoken with have said that if government-like institutions emerged from Anarchy in the way described by Nozick, they wouldn’t have a problem with it.
So, Rothbard and Nozick seem to agree on nearly everything. Rothbard just wants to think he’s an Anarchist. He liked the term because it invoked “freedom” and “anti-government” far more than “minarchism” does. All he really did was divide Libertarianism and lead to it being falsely associated with extremism, for the sake of his own ego. Not a very good thing to do, even from a Libertarian perspective.
Also, this thread belongs in the politics forum.
Blah Blah Blah.
Anarchy is populist. Minarchism is elitist.
Nathyn "Provided that governments are minimal and operate on the basis of voluntary funding, it’s difficult to see what the benefits would be of “smashing the state.”
If governments were funded voluntary they would not be governments. Get it ?
I don’t understand how you’re going to call a small movement like Minarchism “elitist” or an even smaller movement like Anarcho-Capitalism “populist.”
Minarchists generally have no problem with Anarchists. It’s the other way around.
See the radio show, Free Talk Live, where Anarchist Ian Bernard regularly berates his co-host, Mark, for being a Minarchist.
If that’s your definition, OK, but it doesn’t seem to be widely accepted. Nozick was a Minarchist, but he supported voluntary taxation. Most Minarchists do, but they don’t label themselves as “Anarchists.”
Associating Libertarianism with Anarchism substantially hurt the credibility of the Libertarian movement because by using that word, it made people automatically associate Libertarians with violent extremists and thus not even consider their arguments.
If Rothbard had never been born, right now Ron Paul might’ve won Iowa instead of Huckabee.