Because if you grant an organization a monopoly on decision making and violence there is no way to prevent that organization from establishing the sort of totalitarian control over society that was exemplified in Nazi Germany.
But how would it be easier to prevent it if several such organizations were granted to use violence? The governments of the world today are competing violent organizations “security providers”, anarcho capitalism in practice, and it’s safe to say that the concept didn’t work very well with respect to freedom!
The only way for libertarian rights of the individual to be upheld, is if enough fraction of all humans (in a certain area at least) understand and appreciate libertarian rights and join to uphold them. If it’s done in a market similiar way or by democratic referendum or even a coup d’etat, is not important.
I believe that each individual has the right to not be forced by others. Regardless of what insurance he has or hasn’t. I say that it’s right to use violence against those who violate that right, no matter what laws they claim that they live by or what organizationprotects them.
And if anarcho capitalists claim that it would be more practical to compete with violence, then why don’t they indeed start competing with the government here and now? The concept is so stupid and obviously failed, that I can’t believe it’s seriously intended. It’s just an academic excercise based on unreal assupmtions.
That’s the whole point of Robert Murphy’s article “Won’t the Warlords Take Over?” If you have a bunch of people who are willing to agree to disagree and form a democratic society, why will these people suddenly turn violent when given opportunity to co-exist in a society where people have different views? Or, why would they support violent micro-governments if they have so far supported a necessarilly non-violent macro-government?
Just because some people believe that abortion is murder doesn’t mean they will attack abortion clinics with bombs. Some do, and the majority of anti-abortion crowd condemns them, which is why there is no call to legalize such bombings.
So, the same peace-loving folks — why would they send their checks to organization that solve differences and compete on the market through violence as opposed to peaceful arbitration and peaceful competition?
You can re-iterate this point by saying: the same reason you don’t support bening tyranny and think benign democracy is better, anarchists do not support benign democracy and think that benign anarchy is better.
I don’t think people would be less benign in anarchy, rather the opposite. But some people have no intention of respecting the rights of other people. And as i understand it, anarcho capitalists say that it is right for them to buy protection from being punished for their crimes, because it wouldn’t be criminal to steal from non-members according to their law. I refuse to tolerate that! I would not refrain from using violence against thieves. I have no repsect for their “comeptition”, I demand freedom for everyone, i.e. monopoly.
Basic criminal law in many modern societies is quite libertarian already, and the court procedures apply very sound principles
I disagree. The prupose of a legal system in a libertarian society is restitution for the victim. This is not the case in our current society. The modern legal system is an abomination. Little to no restitution for the victim, outrageously bureacratic organizations, all of it paid for via extortion, the proliferation of lawyers, people punished for moral or non immoral activities… the failure of this state monopoly is evident and everywhere
e. But some people have no intention of respecting the rights of other people. And as i understand it, anarcho capitalists say that it is right for them to buy protection from being punished for their crimes,
DROs / security firms would view those who aggress against others as a huge liability. There could be something like a credit report but with regard to your conduct towards others. Companies would have agreements in place to go through mediation in the case of disputes. Those who can be proven to have harmed others or their property would most definitely pay through the nose, and no one would defend them.
Yes, I agree that restitution would be the way to go. And paing fines to the government, that is just madness!
But at least basic criminal law describes the rights of every individual to his property and body. And the bureaucracy of the criminal courts is well motivated by important justice principles, like following a predetermined procedure, being very transparent, making sure that both parties are well informed and have their say. I live in a country where about 0.2% of GDP is spent on legal courts. That includes legal aid to suspects and the entire court system for government’s internal administration. So there are no important money to be saved on criminal courts. They are controlled by academic developments, praxis being established and the transparency of it all. Criminal courts are not the problem with todays states, quite the opposite, they are the only institution who actually act to uphold individual property rights! (Anarcho capitalists don’t do much in that way, they just talk about competition being a good thing, without actually competing)
One of my posts had to be approved by a moderator because it had too many links. Here is the link to it above.
And exactly how would you suggest people compete against the state?
Meistro:
DROs / security firms would view those who aggress against others as a huge liability. There could be something like a credit report but with regard to your conduct towards others. Companies would have agreements in place to go through mediation in the case of disputes. Those who can be proven to have harmed others or their property would most definitely pay through the nose, and no one would defend them.
The organization for protection of thieves could compensate higher costs with higher premiums, utlimately financed by thievery from non-members. They wouldn’t care if non-members are hurt. Or they try to run their protection business based on their idealistic values of the purity of some races over other races, or whatever. Why would you want such competition to exist?
government (countable and uncountable; plural governments)
That seems to fit so called “private” security providers too. They make and enforce their own laws. So an-caps want many competing governments? Well congratulation, there a world with over 100 of your beloved “competitors” out there!
What surprises me is that anarcho capitalists say that it is good that thieves compete against honest people, by establishing their own security providers, i.e. violent organizations, which have their own anti-libertarian laws.
Source? I have yet to see any anarcho-capitalist say such a thing.
What else is meant with competing laws, and being against a monopoly on libertarian laws? Obviously, anarcho capitalists advocate anti-liberatrian laws for those who so chooses to make and enforce such laws.
And exactly how would you suggest people compete against the state
Just like an-caps would compete against “private” law makers. It’s your concept, you should be able to describe how it is possible to “compete” with force against force!
I don’t know of any security companies that create their own laws in the USA. Care to provide any sources? It also does not fit PDA’s. You might speak of the governing body in such and such, but no one considers the Olypmic government to be a state. Do not equivocate please.
You stated that anarcho-capitalists say it is a good thing for thieves to compete against honest people. I am asking you to provide a source. I have never seen such a claim, nor do I make that claim myself.
I know how it is possible. I am asking you. Are you suggesting that an-caps should revolt against the state? Or that an-caps should openly break the law and risk imprisonment? It’s your claim, you should be able to describe what you are claiming.
gotlucky:
I don’t know of any security companies that create their own laws in the USA
No, of course not! (Other than rather obscure small underground organizations like “the maffia”). A justice system is a natural monopoly. One cannot stand “competition” from another. What is a law worth, if you are not protected from everyone who break it?
You stated that anarcho-capitalists say it is a good thing for thieves to compete against honest people. I am asking you to provide a source. I have never seen such a claim, nor do I make that claim myself.
Do you mean that it would be right to ignore the laws of such an organization, and to use violence to get rid of their thievery? That sounds like a monopoly!
Are you suggesting that an-caps should revolt against the state? Or that an-caps should openly break the law and risk imprisonment?
Well, how else does one compete against force? It’s not about offering goods and services for others to choose, like on a market. It’s about using more force than the opposition. And the total inaction of anarcho capitalists prove very convincingly that their theory that “competition” with force causes freedom, is wrong. You don’t compete because you are completely overwhelmed by your monpoloy competitor. Competition doesn’t work with force, it is a failed concept.
No, this is not true. It is also clear that you have not read What Law Is or A Praxeological Account of Law, despite the fact that I have now recommended it twice to you. Clayton lays down a solid argument on the nature of law. It should be of great help to you.
The laws of what organization? The thieves guild or the assassins guild? You have still to provide a source of where an anarcho-capitalist has claimed that thieves should compete against honest people. And what do you even mean by such a statement?
Let’s talk about some unlawful organizations, such as the mafia. The mafia has truces and agreements with each other. They do not engage in all out war with each other or the state. There is also no one mafia family that rules over the others. So, if unlawful organizations can come together and reach agreements, what does that say for the potential for lawful organizations? I would say the potential is quite good.
That anarcho-capitalists do not commit suicide against the state is no reason to say that the idea is wrong. All it shows is that there is an organization so powerful that it currently is able to subjugate the general population. However, a great source of the American State’s power comes from the belief of “legitimacy”. Various populations throughout history have overthrown governments because they considered the rulers to no longer be legitimate. That there is no current revolution in America does not mean that the ruling class is protected forever.
Don’t forget the wars that the American State has fought. America lost in Vietnam. The American State failed to win. Look at the current wars. Afghanistan and Iraq are from conquered. They are occupied, and the American State is spending massive amounts of resources to “win”. People with far less resources are still fighting. Now, you might say, if only the American State just nuked them and was done with it, then it would have won! But who would be left to rule? No, the State requires a captive population. Without it, there is no way for the ruling class to survive.
An organization of thieves… what like the state?
Mafia family leaders reach negotiated agreements with each others. But they care not to protect libertarian right of individuals. Younger members of lower ranking families in the clan are coerced to commit crimes against non-mafia victims. I don’t understand why you think that would be better than a monopoly on libertarian rights.
You link to two long texts which mostly deal with very basic concepts like property rights. There is mentions of “disputes”. But a crime is not a dispute. It’s a crime! If not one and the same law is enforced for both the criminal and the victim, I don’t see how justice could be served. Some mafia family leaders would negotiate an agreement which they profit from. You know, you can’t choose to be member of the mafia or not. They unilaterally pick who will be “protected” by them. Because they don’t sell services on a market, they use violence! And that’s all okay according to their law, and according to the laws of other mafia familias. Competing laws and libertarian laws are each others opposites.
We agree on abolishing 99% of government. But the court system which deals with criminal law is actually protecting libertarian rights. That part should be kept and improved if possible.
I think it’s very useful to separate law enforcement from legislature itself. Do you have a problem envisioning how free market will provide private law that applies equally to all, or do you have a problem envisioning how free market will provide enforcement of the said private law? It may be that you have both problems, but it’s useful to separate the two issues.
Here is an interesting description by Robert Murphy on the issue: http://youtu.be/C2WhnOHCpKs
It’s part of the larger lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw&feature=related
Law enforcement can easily be outsourced to a high degree. Like private companies doing the police’s job. It’s just a matter of technical details whether the legal system has employment contracts with individuals, or procures services from companies. Also, you and I may already today agree that a dispute will be handled by private court X. But of course, if you refuse to obey their decision, the monopoly justice system enforces it, as part of court systems protection of libertarian rights.
The question is how crimes should be handled. Murphy says (4 minutes into the video), that criminal and victim will agree that:
“Oh we can’t work this out, lets take it to someone with reputation for being fair!”
What a complete nonsense! Totally unreal. A person who otherwise seems quite intelligent, says something totally stupid like that, as if he was helplessly naive and knows nothing at all about the real world. I cannot understand it as anything other than an academic game without any ambition do describe the real world. If you were brutally raped by someone who hates you because of you race and doesn’t think of yuou as a human being, however do you imagine that you will negaotiate with each other about it, or agree upon a judge. The difference between minarchists and anarcho capitalists, is that the latter are raving mad!
I am not sure I understand your argument. Crime is a violation of someone’s natural rights. Before we pronounce someone a criminal, we have to prove that he is. This is where courts come in. Once we prove that he is a criminal, law enforcement agencies will take care of exerting punishment.
If you’re talking about crime prevention, here is a scenario:
An insurance company patrol is driving around and sees my neighbor trying to get into a car. The patrol is hired by me to protect my property (or is insuring my property) and will pay me a large reward if my car is stolen. It stops this guy and takes him to custody. (Even if it’s not my car, the patrol may have business contract with other insurance companies for mutual protection of customers’ property and/or partial/full compensation for rendered protection services.)
The guy calls his lawyer, who is actually a representative of another protection agency. His lawyer meets with my protection agency’s lawyers. If they cannot agree on the details of what’s going on, they take this case to a third party, a private law arbitrator, whom the market selected as an expert in such matters. (Unlikely alternative: they go to war with each other and lose all custom from other policy holders.)
Third arbitrator hears the case and pronounces my neighbor guilty. My neighbor’s protection agency pays my protection agency a hefty pre-agreed fine and terminates its contract with my neighbor. (Alternatively, it actually forces my neighbor to work the fine off. Third party “prison businesses” may get involved, competing for the agency’s and neighbor’s business.) The neighbor can try to contact another protection agency to become his insurer, but since his “safety rating” has gone through the floor, nobody may be willing to sign up.
If the arbitrator finds out that my neighbor was held unjustly (let’s say it was actually his own car), my protection agency pays him damages. Its own customer service rating goes down somewhat for false arrest.
And so on. There are multiple scenarios that one can imagine of how this would work out, which parties would be involved, etc. It’s difficult to imagine all the parties in complete clarity, but that’s like saying “I want to create a gadget which provides Internet connection, works as a cell phone, and allows me to play chess. What are all the parties involved that will make this happen?” There are countless possibilities, and the market can provide mulitple competing solutions. Not necessarily mutually exclusive.
you were brutally raped by someone who hates you because of you race and doesn’t think of yuou as a human being, however do you imagine that you will negaotiate with each other about it, or agree upon a judge.
That’s not how it would work. You survive the rape, go to the hospital, they do the rape kit, contact your private police, they try to find the guy. They could even just flat out kill him, if the evidence is sufficient for them to take that risk. Maybe they try him maybe they don’t. The reason why a trial is not always necessary here is because someone who goes vigillante takes a huge risk - if they kill an innocent person they are now under a sentence of death. So there would be huge incentives to make sure you know the guy is guilty before you go after him. Or they could capture and try him if they wanted to be safe. At no point, if he is guilty, does his consent matter. OTOH if he’s not guilty, and your police get him, then they are now under a death sentence which his private police would have to carry out (unless his relatives accept restitution).
Yeah, you want to negotiate about it. I want monopoly on libertarian laws for everyone.
What if the negotiation turns out like this, that the thief claims that he has the right to take your car. And since his “protecting agency” is much more powerful that the insurance company you have picked, he gets his way. Just as if you started such an insurance company today and tried to negotiate with the government about taxes being wrong. It won’t work! The conecpt is completely failed.