I sent some friends of mine some writings by anarcho-capitalists specifically Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy. We had an email exchange about some of the ideas, here are a list of questions they have submitted to me that I do not have great answers for. Any advice would be appreciated.
-
Do we need leaders?
a) How are they to be chosen?
b) If not, please explain. I suppose possibly your explanation is simply they are not needed, but will arise naturally under anarchy. -
Under anarchy, are there “laws of the land”? As you pointed out, murder laws can vary by state in the US, but people still could say, at least in general terms, that murder is illegal in the US. Would murder be illegal under anarchy? Perhaps it would be illegal in practice, but not necessarily in principle? I.e. IF I somehow got ahold of some land with no clauses attached, AND I decided to make murder legal on my property, THEN it would be legal, but in practice this would be unheard of?
-
Due to the possibility of long-distance theft or harm (computers, ballistic missiles, etc), the physical location of the perpetrator seems like a poor determinate for the law of the land.
-
The Bill Gates scenario, quoted:
I’m super rich. Like Bill Gates rich. I don’t like you. I kill you. I pay the damages. I don’t care. I promise never to do it again, and get an insurer to cover me for an inordinate sum at a hefty premium in the future. Do I get to go free? Why not?
5)I’m broke and have no insurance. Can I even set foot anywhere or will no one let me in because I can’t afford to sign the extensive contract?
-
Here’s a possible future anarchist society. Everything is going smoothly in Anarchia, with some people getting wealthy, and some getting poor and having lots of kids. Some of the wealthy people are a bit snobby. A small, wealthy community gets together and agrees to add laws on all of their individual properties which dramatically raises the amount and quality of insurance required to enter. They buy the local roads and local shops and make similar changes. This is in their self interest, because they can keep the riff-raff out. Especially blacks and those awful jews. They have created a nice little community for themselves and their families, where they never have to see a poor person, go to school with a poor person, buy food from a poor person, etc. If they are racist, they can also exclude blacks/jews/gypsies/etc. They have excellent security guards, police, etc. Other wealthy people are attracted to this locale by the prosperity and safety. They buy properties adjacent to the enclave and negotiate to be added to the community. It expands. We’ll call this community RichOleBoys. Nearby property appreciates in value. There is more expansion. A new community is formed nearby using the same model, only not quite as exclusive, called AlmostRichOleBoys. After the passage of time, rich and poor will be pretty well segregated physically, with intermediate levels in between. Poor communities, call them ghettos, have the worst of everything: The highest crime, the worst education, poor sanitation, unsafe drinking water, pollution, etc. (yes they already have many of those things in the US, but not all of them, and not to the same degree I envision).
Even if we don’t care about conditions in the ghetto, this is a very dangerous country we live in, poised for class warfare of the worst kind. -
Regarding the fictional thought experiment farmer who cannot make a pencil. You say there are strong inventives in favor of interacting with society. Not all people are sane. Nor are all people rational. survivalists exist. Moreover he would not have to interact with society in order to get pencils. He could send a friend. Or he could have them delivered via air-drop. Again I ask: If this farmer, who has signed no contracts, commits what would be called a crime in the US, either while on his own property, or beating a hasty retreat to his own property, WHO has the authority to punish him, and WHERE does this authority arise from?
-
In similar vein to 6), and mentioned by Eric already, I would envision standard contracts developing. No killing, stealing, raping, etc. Agree to arbitration by such and such company(ies). Must have insurance for minimum $1,000. Blah blah blah. Possibly the contracts go further, such as restricting pollution, agreeing not to discriminate based on color/sex/creed/religion. Entire regions may adopt identical standard contracts. Doing so facilitates traversing the countryside and doing business, so it would be beneficial to both the inhabitants and businesses in the region. These regions will use one set of arbitration companies, one set of police forces, etc. They will need to have representatives of the region negotiate with these companies. We will call these representatives “Governors”. We will call these regions “States”. How should States choose their Governors? I realize that there is some potential conflict between this version of the future and that described in 6).It’s possible both situations could exist, where State laws do not prevent localized communities from having stricter standards, say. It’s also possible that one (or both) of these scenarios would not arise, for reasons I don’t forsee at this moment. Much scarier are the bad scenarios I haven’t thought of.