State and PDA...

[Sage]

Regarding these “how would X work under anarchy” threads, I think this is relevant:

@Sage

Remember, the fundamental issue is competition vs. monopoly. Monopolies are inherently rights-violating (and hence are immoral) and face information and incentive problems (and hence are inefficient). Markets, on the other hand, can exist without aggression and have a more effective incentive structure. Therefore, a competitive legal system is preferable to a monopolistic one.

I notice minarchists often argue against anarchism by asking how some specific scenario would be dealt with under anarchy, and then, unconvinced by the response, conclude that anarchy is undesirable or absurd. But these types of questions are irrelevant: the anarchist has no burden of proof to show how specific scenarios would be handled. What they do have to show is that the incentive structure of anarchy is superior to the incentive structure of minarchy. And this they have done decisively: market competition has a more effective incentive structure than political democracy.

Unless the minarchist can come up with a reason why the legal system should be excepted from this rule, they have no choice but to abandon statism and accept anarchism.

@Htut

Whatever the case, if we are not to be robbed by every ne’er-do-well we must have institutions of organized violence. To use it as a definition of the state leaves us with the problem of wide-spread systematic violence in any social organization, just as all actions are redistributive all property is violence.

True, most or all social institutions ultimately come down to violence (usually self-defense). But the crucial point is that the State is the organization of initiatory violence, i.e. aggression, whereas something like property is based on defensive violence.

@Htut

To use the definition of the state-as-violence as an argument against the state is ineffective, since it is only the claim that the state is wrongful violence that is in dispute, not that the state (along with many other organizations we would consider lawful) are violent, potentially more violent than the state.

Well, some people are so deluded as to think that the State is a voluntary organization, so it’s important to keep hammering on this point. (Incidentally, people who think the State is voluntary usually also give a public goods justification for government, but they don’t see the contradiction.) Before you can argue that the State’s use of violence is wrong, you first have to establish that the State uses violence.