Some recent posts made me ask myself some questions about how should private defense agencies (PDAs) operate. This concerns subjects such as abortion and child abuse.
Let’s say a mother wishes to abort. How will the anarchic society determine whether this is allowed? If, by will of majority, PDAs are pro-life, how is anarcho-capitalism different from democracy in respect to libertarian principles?
Moreover, there is a second issue. Let’s say a parent abuses his child. What gives PDAs the right to intervene? The child couldn’t possibly be a client of a PDA, so the PDA would punish the parent regardless of the fact the child isn’t a client. How is this different from statism and laws? Furthermore, when will a child become a major and how is this decided?
The bottom line is that in order for PDAs to be able to protect some people’s rights, they seemingly have to rely on a non-contractual basis of action, similarly to what is currently done in states.
My question is: how is it anarchy anymore if, at least partly, some basic ethical rules have to be enforced in a statist or mob-rule way? This could apply to other issues, like whether or not mob-rule will eventually deem it right to restrict free speech, like states do.
Because assuming there are services that provide abortion the mother is well within her rights to contract with these services, she just can’t force them to provide the service, nor can she force the PDAs to provide her defence. How does this violate the NAP? Actually I daresay in a libertarian society abortion would be looked down upon.
Why would the PDA be the only power capable of intervening? Why wouldn’t others pay the PDA to intervene or simply do it themsevles.
Is it acceptable for others to intervene on someone’s behalf without his consent?
What I don’t understand is… how would the anarchic society determine what constitutes an aggression? Wouldn’t it be just as easy for a majority to suppress free speech against itself, for example?
I’m going to quote Robert Murphy on this, as he answers the questions in his article Chaos Theory.
“The controversial issue of abortion, just as other conflicts in a private law system, would be handled by competing firms setting policies to best match the desires of their customers. Those people sufficiently horrified by the practice could establish a gated community in which all residents agreed to refrain from abortion, and to report anyone caught performing one.”
Bob Murphy Chaos Theory pg. 21
"The question of children is one of the most difficult. As a first pass, let us note that, obviously, concerned parents would only patronize those schools, and live in those apartments or housing complexes, where the protection of their children was of paramount importance to the staff.
Beyond this, the basic “prohibitions” on parental child abuse and neglect could be stipulated in the marriage contract. In addition to whatever romance may be entailed, a marriage is ultimately a partnership between two people, and prudent couples will officially spell out this arrangement, with all of its benefits and obligations. For example, before abandoning her career to raise a man’s children, a woman may require a financial pledge in case of divorce (i.e. dissolving the partnership). In the same way, a standard clause in marriage contracts could define and specify penalties for the improper treatment of children.
Another point to consider is the enhanced role of adoption in a free society. Much as it shocks modern sensibilities, there would be a fully functioning “baby market,” in which parental privileges were sold to the highest bidder. Although seemingly crass, such a market would surely reduce child abuse. After all, abusive or negligent parents are probably the ones most likely to offer their children for adoption, when loving couples are allowed to pay them handsomely for it."
Bob Murphy Chaos Theory pg. 20-21
Edit:
If you wish to read the entire article, it can be found here.
However, another problem remains. What if the majority of the residents of a community decide speaking against religion should be punished? Is it ethical for the majority to decide, on grounds that “those who don’t like it can always leave”? This sounds no different from statism.
I would highly suggest reading the article that I linked, as it addresses all your concerns.
However, a community cannot decree such a doctrine without voluntary consent of all the citizens. Surely you would not join a community requiring you to sign a contract saying you will follow a religion, if you do not wish to. Any sort of violence on part of a community onto a citizen not consenting to their unwarranted attacks would be fined by a private court.
I just finished reading the article, thanks. Things are clearer now.
As I can see, it’s hard to expect a 90% anarchic majority drop such requirements without recourse to their education and principles. On the other hand, it is probable that one can’t leave a region for another simply because no other region satisfies his contractual terms (just as there are very few states that don’t prohibit drug consumption).
As I thought more, it would be apparent that a state, being so good at coercing, could impose (maybe through a benevolent dictator) libertarian principles against the will of the people. While this could be true, states are more prone to be overtaken by malevolent forces, so it’s risky to put confidence in such a system.
Getting back to the “nowhere to go problem”, I imagine stateless societies couldn’t expand indefinitely, as states did. Every proprietor needs to spend/pay an amount of wealth proportional to the area to protect his lands. Would this be a good market protection mechanism against the disappearance of no-mans-land (unpopulated, uncontrolled) zones? If so, every minority group could move to an unpopulated area and establish its own legal system, according to its liking.
Keep in mind that protection agencies, in whatever form they come, only bind their clients contractually. What may be expected is a network of contracts between PDAs to arise, to deal with these kind of conflicts peacefully. No one will be forced to subscribe to any given protection agency, and thus since those who dislike abortion can simply go and form some gated community, as was mentioned above, it would be a non-issue. If someone does not consent to intervention on their behalf, of course, the person intervening is acting unlawfully.
I don’t know how you come to that conclusion. At worst, the cost would be proportional to the boundary length, not the area enclosed, but under normal circumstances he wouldn’t have to protect his borders with most neighbours…
I was trying to say that anarchic gated communities wouldn’t rule over areas larger than they need. So unsatisfied people could still migrate to an unregulated area and form a PDA network that supports their beliefs.
And yes, boundary length is better said for PDAs, although there are other services which incur costs per area unit.
Are you under the impression that everyone will agree on what is appropriate? I like to use the front lawn test, what activities if you saw your neighbor doing on their front lawn would you intervene to stop?
For example, if you saw your neighbor beating his child with a tire iron would you intervene? How about raping somebody? How about murdering children? What if they were doing this inside a gated community?
I can tell you, I am going to intervene, I don’t care what PDA I belong too or what PDA they belong too.
To the extent we disagree on the rights to intervene in these types of cases then it is likely that resolution will be violent.