With any good or service on the free market, the good or service will be successful when it satisfies the needs of the consumer. If courts were brought into the free market, they will respect property if and only if the consumers of the court respect property. However, the very fact that they are in a court (in the majority of the times) means that one of the parties disrespects private property anyway.
People will act rationally and in their own self-interest. Often times, it will be in their interest to force an exchange; to increase their utility at the expense of another. Anarcho-Capitalism assumes that everybody, including the criminals, want justice. However, they do not. They simply act in their own best interest.
The point of the argument is that since it is not always in people’s best interest to enforce justice, then justice will not be enforced. Property rights will not be protected, and the whole basis for market anarchy, the protection of property, will not exist,
Right, now that I know what you’re saying, I will try to explain to you why you’re wrong.
You have to remember that in an anarcho-capitalist system, private property would be protected through Private Defence Agencies (PDAs). Until someone is actually convicted of a crime, and especially before they commit it, they will want maximum justice. So even potential criminals, until they actually commit the act, will want justice. Since the amount of people not committing crimes always overweigh the amount of people committing crimes, it is very unlikely that a legitimate PDA will be able to survive by tending only to criminals. Not only will it have too few customers, but the other PDAs will likely turn on it (not necessarily war, simply not having any agreements with them).
In such a scenario, as a PDA’s reputation is the most important part of its income, it will do everything to preserve it. So you can certainly imagine that in the case of a court order convicting a PDA’s customer, the contract of protection between them is breached, and the PDA is no longer responsible for the criminal’s protection. If the criminal doesn’t consent to whatever judgement was made, then it will be forced upon him, now that he has no protection. Obviously, no new protection will be offered either, since I don’t see PDAs offering protection for convicted criminals (reputation).
Due to the whole concept of preliminary court arrangements between a PDA and their clients on one level, and then the PDAs between each other and courts on the next level, contractual obligations will require the criminals to have made a contract regarding the voidance of the PDA’s responsibilities if they commit a crime, prior to any crime actually being committed, or else they wouldn’t get the protection in the first place.
The system may not initially work in such a way, but when enough PDAs go bankrupt due to a failed reputation, entrepreneurs will get the hang of how to make the system work, as they always do.
Dawkins raises the point in The Selfish Gene that cooperation in the Prisoners’ Dilemma is “almost” evolutionarily stable. That meaningless notion is formalized in a later paper as the following “weak form” of evolutionary stability: any population with a majority of cooperators will drive defectors to extinction, where the needed majority converges to 50%. In order for a population of non-cooperators to drive cooperators to extinction, they must have a majority that converges to 100%. Hence a very small group of cooperators can survive an a population of non-cooperators; and the slimmest majority of cooperators can actually expel non-cooperators from society.
Hiding inside this observation is a fairly convincing proof that justice can prevail under anarchy. Yes, criminals can make out better by preying on decent citizens, than they would as cooperative members of society. But they still make out better as good citizens, than they do (on average) in conflicts with either other criminals or good citizens standing up for themselves. Your incentive to crime is countered by my willingness to defend myself from you with deadly force.
Crime would still occur under anarchy, of course, but there’s no strong basis to believe that it would be any worse than under government. There IS a sound argument that government makes things worse, though: the negative consequences of crime are greatly reduced for individuals backed by government force. Intelligent criminals will realize that they can commit bigger crimes in greater safety if they become lawyers, cops or politicians.
You are making an error over the number of participants in this. There are not two, the defendent and accuser, but three participants, the defendent, accuser, and court. The court absolutely wants justice in every case, because that is what allows it to continue business as a court protecting innocents. As such a court pursuing its own rational self-interest will hunt down criminals who don’t respect its rulings.
I think that the analogy that providing services on the free market will be just like any other good is false. In a free market, property rights are protected by a third party, the government: this means that the only way for businesses to succeed is to yield to the desire of the consumers.
Let us, for a moment, admit that the consumers, want justice. Under a contractually free society, it would then follow that they could get justice, right? But the problem is that what gives the courts the power to enforce their rulings is not wealth, but weaponry and force. The problem is that whoever has the power to commit agression is no longer subject to the will of the consumer: he is able to oppress. Whoever has force needs no consent.
There are no needs, there are only wants. A service is successfull on the market when it is produced for less than consummers are willing to pay. Thus, even though many people may want to prevent their neighbors to use drug, they may not be ready to pay the actual price of enforcement. David Friedman explains this quite clearly, it is regrettable that Rothbard mistook this common sense description of anarcho-capitalist for a normative preference.
Your point is well taken: in principle, a strong protector in an apathetic society has opportunity and motivation to start using coercion–at which point, he has become government.
It’s important to remember, though, that defense isn’t “power to enforce rulings.” I have the right to defend myself against aggression; I do NOT have the right to “enforce” my “rulings.” If I hire someone and delegate authority to him as my agent, he has no more power than I started with. He can defend me; he can’t “enforce” my (or his own) “rulings.” He can’t aggress, because I can’t aggress and he’s my agent. He can only repel aggression–and yes, he can do so forcibly.
Government claims to be doing exactly that: acting as my agent in my defense. That’s the gist of the “social contract” that supposedly binds me. But it’s not true. Government isn’t my agent; it’s my master. It claims the power not only to defend me, but to COMPEL me. It claims the right to “enforce” its “rulings.” That power is precisely what makes it an oppressor.
As I tell people–usually to their incredulity–private security is rather similar to our present society, IF police officers were bound be EXACTLY the same laws as the rest of us. If, for example, cops were punished just like everyone else whenever they initiate force against another. If tasings and pepper-sprayings were punished as assault. If shooting a fleeing “suspect” were punished as murder. If searches without consent (with OR without a warrant) were punished as breaking and entering. And so on.
The critical ingredient to make anarcho-capitalism work is for people to decide, once and for all, that NOBODY has the right to aggress, INCLUDING POLICE. If people realized that, of course, we’d still be more or less the republic that Thomas Jefferson envisioned.
Right. If justice is not in people’s best interest, then something else must be. Perhaps injustice is ? Or perhaps justice will not be enforced by ‘people’ but by some sort of alien ? or by angels ?..or maybe…by the state ?
what you describe above sounds like governmen but perhaps on a smaller scale (is it necessarily worse?);
an anarcho-capitalist society will have a generally libertarian culture;
competition among service providers of security and justice;
you’re assuming the courts themselves would enforce their own rulings rather than certify the legitimacy of private individuals and/or independent security firms enforcing their rulings, if necessary;
a populace that will probably be much better and more generally armed and trained in self-defense than the present one.
“If justice is not in people’s best interest, then something else must be.”
Justice is in the people’s best interest, yes, but may not be in a person’s best interest: is it in the robber’s best interest to be put in jail? It would be idiotic to deny that action is possible, which, while unjust, does not increase the utility of the acting individual.
Usually, they are prevented from acting in a way disutilitous to another by a government or ruling body. But in the case of several ruling bodies, this is no different at all. The problem is when the ruling bodies no longer enforce justice, but use their power in their own self-interest. This will happen in a ‘free market’ for defense as well. Defense contractors will not be held in check by consumer sovereignty, because there is nobody to hold them in check!
What I am arguing is that PDA’s, or whatever, will not be held in check by consumer sovereignty, since consumer sovereignty only exists in a free market in which the PDAs themselves would have to provide. If the PDAs were to choose to use their power to oppress the people, it would be fairly easy to do so. They can’t be held in check by something that they themselves have to supply.
“Or perhaps justice will not be enforced by ‘people’ but by some sort of alien ? or by angels ?..or maybe…by the state ?”
Yes, by the state. But a minarchist state whose only responsibility and duty is to protect the free market; to protect property rights. At least somehow the ruling body can be held in check here by the notion of democracy; which, since justice is in the interest of every individual, should have no problem providing justice.
Right, and then comes the profit-motivated firm that seizes the opportunity to remove outlaw firms. Ultimately, these firms must rely on their clientele for increased profitability and the ability to actually remain competitive. The courts may use force (or whatever else) to enforce their rulings on guilty parties, but I fail to see how they’d enjoy anywhere near government’s success in establishing any sort of rulership. I’d rather take my chances with these firms than institute some utopian minarchist catastrophe waiting to happen.
what you describe above sounds like governmen but perhaps on a smaller scale (is it necessarily worse?)
Yes, I support a minarchistic state in which the only function is to protect the market. Surely this view is welcome on Mises’ own website?
an anarcho-capitalist society will have a generally libertarian culture;
How will a libertarian culture prevent PDAs from oppressing their subjects? They will still act rationally and in their own best interest: as soon as it becomes beneficial for them to oppress their people, justice will disappear.
competition among service providers of security and justice;
Again, consumer sovereignty/competition only exists in a free market; the free market which the PDAs or courts or insurance companies would provide. So if they cease to protect property rights, they will no longer be bound by the wishes of consumers or by competition. We would live in chaos and without the very rights that libertarians hold so dearly.
you’re assuming the courts themselves would enforce their own rulings rather than certify the legitimacy of private individuals and/or independent security firms enforcing their rulings, if necessary;
I’m not assuming this; i am only saying that in order for their to be justice, some group must enforce property rights by force; these groups are not held in check by consumers.
a populace that will probably be much better and more generally armed and trained in self-defense than the present one.
This makes no difference. If there will be battles, as PDAs would necessarily result in, that would result in a devastating loss of life and property, no matter how well-trained the general populus is.
If I’m not mistaken, the state is just a bunch of people, right ? That is, the state is no different from a private provider of justice. The only difference between a free-market in justice and your minimal state is the difference between monopoly and competition. I fail to see how having a monopolistic provider of justice can make things better.
As for “the notion of democracy” being the key to check arbitrary power, I confess I don’t get it. What’s more, if you look around you may notice that the minimal state was tried…and failed rather miserably.
“Right, and then comes the profit-motivated firm that seizes the opportunity to remove outlaw firms.”
I think that it is extremely naive to assume that defense firms will be able to make more money through the free market than through violent coercion. Why should a PDA, with the spectre of force, settle for small monthly payments from customers? Why not take all of their property? It would be more profitable. And if it isn’t with other competition (which I highly doubt), then why not collude? This would result in simply another form of an oppressive state; surely a minarchist democracy is preferable to this fate.
"Ultimately, these firms must rely on their clientele for increased profitability and the ability to actually remain competitive. "
What I am arguing is that PDA’s, or whatever, will not be held in check by consumer sovereignty, since consumer sovereignty only exists in a free market in which the PDAs themselves would have to provide. If the PDAs were to choose to use their power to oppress the people, it would be fairly easy to do so. They can’t be held in check by something that they themselves have to supply.
"I’d rather take my chances with these firms than institute some utopian minarchist catastrophe waiting to happen. "
First of all, I honestly can’t believe all the hostility I am getting on Mises’ own forum! (not necessarily you, Inquisitor). But we have had a democracy for about 230 years now, and although it didn’t work out perfectly, I still wouldn’t call it a disaster. If there is an ideological Libertarian movement, there is no reason why a minarchist democracy couldn’t function for a very, very, long time. As long as people believe in property rights, in freedom, the democracy will survive. Anarchy would be a disaster. There would be no enforcement of contracts or property rights whatsoever.
If the majority of people ‘demand’ justice, then the market will provide justice. And the most efficient way for justice to be provided is trough competition. On the other hand, if you believe that the market can only exist IF individual rights are firstly created by a minimal state, then of course, your argument makes sense. Except that it’s based on wrong premises.
addendum
If the state were to choose to use its power to oppress the people, it would be fairly easy to do so.
“If the majority of people ‘demand’ justice, then the market will provide justice.”
Again, this presupposes that there is a market. But there is no market if the PDAs choose (as it would be in their own best interest to plunder) not to provide one! Justice is a necessary prerequisite of a free market. So something has to provide justice so the market works. The market can’t just provide itself.
“And the most efficient way for justice to be provided is trough competition.”
But there is no competition without justice! The stronger will be able to oppress the weaker, the PDAs willnot settle for less profit than they could have by plundering the countryside, and there would be horrible bloodshed everywhere! There would be no rights!
“if you believe that the market can only exist IF individual rights are firstly created by a minimal state, then of course, your argument makes sense. Except that it’s based on wrong premises.”
What premises? The weakness of your argument is shown in the fact that you call mine ‘wrong’ without taking the time to refute it. This type of Marxist tactic should not be welcome on Mises’ own forums.