The one reservation I have about an anarcho-capitalist society is how would person and property rights be protected? Or how would criminals be punished for violating those rights?
There are several good books on the subject. The Market for Liberty is a good one, Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty.
These articles are good too:
The Private Production of Defense
Private Police: A Note
Market Chosen Law
Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts and the Police
Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security
Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primative Societies: Law Without Government
Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and DispensingJustice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order
without State Coercion
Guns for Protection, and Other Private Sector Responses to the Government’s Failure to Control Crime
The Role of Personal Justice in Anarcho-Capitalism
Order Without Law: Where Will Anarchist Keep the Madmen?
There is a considerably large literature on this. Some underutilized sources: Check out some of the articles by Bruce Benson in the JLS. Also, check out the article on justice entrepreneurship by George Smith, reponses to it, and his reply in volume 3 of the JLS:
Thank you both. I will have to look into it more.
Btw, whoever rated this thread a one star is a jerk. Whoever rated this thread to bring it up to a three star is very kind. =)
Chaos Theory: Two Essays in Market Anarchy by Robert Murphy is a good and quick introduction to the topic as well.
Well, I have only read 5 pages of this article, but I am convinced, from an ethical standpoint, that the state is immoral. I had already started down this path a few days ago, but now I am convinced. The government is based on coercion, therefore nothing it does can be morally justified.
I still am not sure how our persons and property would be protected, but I do believe in the market, and I would much rather put my faith there than in any government.
Edit: Ok, I finished the article. The article is simply amazing.
From Hoppe’s article [p.6]:
Does this really follow?
Consumers never really had the choice of fully-enjoying the public good. The fact that they individually did not choose to purchase the public good might only be because they knew that they would not themselves fully enjoy all of it’s positive effects. If consumers somehow had a guarantee that others would contribute too, maybe they would have chosen to purchase it; how could we know?
I don’t think it’s enough to say, either, that consumers would have made some voluntary contract amongst themselves to each contribute towards the public good. There would be ever increasing incentives to holdout and allow others to pay for the good. Perhaps a good that everyone would be perfectly willing to pay their share of would never be bought simply because individuals didn’t trust others to do the same.
Isn’t this basically the whole point of public-good theories?
Hence dominant assurance contracts for those cases… forced rides are how governments handle things.
A good starting point, imo. That was the last thing I read as a minarchist before getting past my initial knee-jerk “but it can’t work” reaction to anarchy.
To the OP: Though he doesn’t go into it in great depth, L. Neil Smith provides an example of how an anarchist justice system could work in his novel The Probability Broach; for the regular novel version you’ll have to order a hard copy, but there’s a graphic novel version of TPB available online.
But it is impossible for public goods theorists to prove that this is the case (that if people know that others are guaranteed to contribute too they will buy a product) . The only thing we know for sure is that without the public good being forced on individuals, they never would have chosen it. The conclusion being therefore that the public good is secondary.
Of course, I do think most public goods would be purchased by the private sector, but since people are forced to pay for the lower quality government goods, the cost of purchasing it privately is so much more expensive (because one has to pay for it twice) that it makes it not worth it. Or the government simply forbids it.