I'm trying to learn more about the views of Anarchists. I consider myself a Minarchist in the way I consider the U.S. Founding Fathers to have been Minarchists. Thus, the question. If you and I enter into a contract, and I breach the contract, how are your contractual rights enforced? In other words, how does the Anarchist ensure that he gets the benefit of his bargain?
I guess that the most common answer would be that all arguments over contracts are left to the arbitration, insurance and security companies, that are providing the service of protection and justice.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
libertarian:There are no "rights" under anarchy.
Then I'm confused. What are the private defense agencies enforcing or defending?
libertarian:The free market has the incentive to enforce agreements without a divine force.
I agree, but fraud will inevitably occur and some parties will inevitably breach their contracts. If their are no rights, as you say, the defense agencies will be powerless. How does a defense agency have the power to regain what was lost? By force? Does "might make right" in anarchy?
These are legimate questions so I hope you don't feel I'm attacking your position. I am, however, mulling over what I see as inconsistencies and/or weaknesses in order to test the theory for my own benefit. I've seen that a lot of people on this forum have evolved from Minarchists to Anarchists, etc. and I'm trying to identify the reasoning.
reidbump:So the arbitrators, insurance and security companies would have executive branches with powers of enforcement? And is that power to enforce given to those entities through the parties' contract, thereby making it voluntary enforcement? What happens if the breaching party refuses to recognize their power of enforcement even though he agreed to it by the terms of the contract? Are there any consequences imposed, or does the free market supply the consequence (i.e. people will hear about him and refuse to do business with him)?
There are two likely scenarios. The two parties are customers of the same protection/insurance company or two different companies.
If they are both customers of the same company then the provider's arbitration division would settle the dispute. Not much different then how the law works today, however, the necessities of competition in the provision of protection/insurance would ensure much more just decisions. A company would need a reputation for satisfying both parties in a dispute, or it would not be competitive. The lack of competition in justice is what creates today's legal system where no one wins.
If both parties belonged to different companies, then both would refer the dispute to their company. The two companies would arbitrate on behalf of their customers, and each company would have to make a fine balance between satisfying their own customer and not harming their relation with the other company. The economics of violence ensures that disputes, except the most grave, will be settled peacefully.
P.S.
And individuals would not circumvent the legal system for fear of increasing their insurance payments, or even becoming unable to find a company willing to cover them.
Peace
reidbump: libertarian:There are no "rights" under anarchy. Then I'm confused. What are the private defense agencies enforcing or defending?
After this significant paradigm shift of abolishing the state apparatus takes place. I predict(though I can only speculate) that new mechanisms of insurance and reputation based incitaments would be constructed in such society. Like the anarchistic society that exists through the internet reputation system likewise that exists on online auctions would become in demand. So that people can asses the risks of doing business with someone.
In such society people would be much more interested in insuring themself from brooken contracts like they insure themself from other destroyed property. So there is really no need to enforce a contract. First of all a contract is built upon the understanding that the exchange is mutually beneficial. If the subjective value of one party changes and he walks away with only half of the trade done. I would get restituted through my insurance company and the causer of this would drop marks in reputation.
This is how it is currently dealt with in the anarchistic market of the internet who knows what efficiency boost for dealing inbetween people will evolve in the future.
JonBostwick:If both parties belonged to different companies, then both would refer the dispute to their company. The two companies would arbitrate on behalf of their customers, and each company would have to make a fine balance between satisfying their own customer and not harming their relation with the other company. The economics of violence ensures that disputes, except the most grave, will be settled peacefully.
What happens when the arbitration proceedings fail?
lordmetroid:In such society people would be much more interested in insuring themself from brooken contracts like they insure themself from other destroyed property. So there is really no need to enforce a contract.
But the insurance company, standing in the shoes of its customer, would still want the benefit of its customer's bargain. An insurance company would not just pay its customer's claim. It would seek indemnification from the breaching party. Thus, although insurance protects the customer, it does not answer the question regarding enforcement of the contract.
lordmetroid:First of all a contract is built upon the understanding that the exchange is mutually beneficial.
What about fraud. I understand mutually beneficial exchanges, but the defrauded contracting party (and his agents, i.e. insurance/protection companies) will seek protection of their own rights in one way or another.
lordmetroid:This is how it is currently dealt with in the anarchistic market of the internet who knows what efficiency boost for dealing inbetween people will evolve in the future.
But that is only part of the recourse. The defrauded party also has recourse against the breacher through the courts.
reidbump: JonBostwick:If both parties belonged to different companies, then both would refer the dispute to their company. The two companies would arbitrate on behalf of their customers, and each company would have to make a fine balance between satisfying their own customer and not harming their relation with the other company. The economics of violence ensures that disputes, except the most grave, will be settled peacefully. What happens when the arbitration proceedings fail?
You mean what person has the final say and can bring violence upon any person who disagrees with his decision?
I belive I can clarify what is meant with there are no rights in an anarchic society.
You as an individual has no default agreed upon rights with other people in your society. However an anarchistic society would be evolving from some of todays modern societies and hence still have the concept of rights however fussy such concept may be. Market anarchists believes that human nature's urge to own their beloved proerty and would result in a great respect for the Non-Agression-Principle as people interact on a voluntary basis as just like most individual human interactions are today.
People with different understanding of rights would form on a voluntary basis societies that recognize however they choose to organize their society with the rights that would follow from such agreements. Respecting their neighbour prefered way of life without interfering in his daily affairs and intentions unless agressed upon.
reidbump:I'm trying to learn more about the views of Anarchists. I consider myself a Minarchist in the way I consider the U.S. Founding Fathers to have been Minarchists. Thus, the question. If you and I enter into a contract, and I breach the contract, how are your contractual rights enforced? In other words, how does the Anarchist ensure that he gets the benefit of his bargain?
They aren't. Market Anarchists claim they're protected by voluntary arbitration, which is clearly absurd.
It's not difficult to follow Nozick's argument that market anarchism would eventually lead to a "monopoly" on either land, defense, or arbitration.
First of all, the benefits of such a monopoly are so substantial because of economies of scale.
Second of all, once such a natural monopoly has formed, it ceases to be "anarchy."
Rothbard's claim that Anarchists need a "constitution" to avoid chaos seems to invoke the social contract -- one of Nozick's key premises.
Provided that governments are minimal and operate on the basis of voluntary funding, it's difficult to see what the benefits would be of "smashing the state."
Many Anarchists I've spoken with have said that if government-like institutions emerged from Anarchy in the way described by Nozick, they wouldn't have a problem with it.
So, Rothbard and Nozick seem to agree on nearly everything. Rothbard just wants to think he's an Anarchist. He liked the term because it invoked "freedom" and "anti-government" far more than "minarchism" does. All he really did was divide Libertarianism and lead to it being falsely associated with extremism, for the sake of his own ego. Not a very good thing to do, even from a Libertarian perspective.
Also, this thread belongs in the politics forum.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Blah Blah Blah.
Anarchy is populist. Minarchism is elitist.
JonBostwick:Blah Blah Blah.Anarchy is populist. Minarchism is elitist.
Juan:Nathyn "Provided that governments are minimal and operate on the basis of voluntary funding, it's difficult to see what the benefits would be of "smashing the state." If governments were funded voluntary they would not be governments. Get it ?
If that's your definition, OK, but it doesn't seem to be widely accepted. Nozick was a Minarchist, but he supported voluntary taxation. Most Minarchists do, but they don't label themselves as "Anarchists."
Associating Libertarianism with Anarchism substantially hurt the credibility of the Libertarian movement because by using that word, it made people automatically associate Libertarians with violent extremists and thus not even consider their arguments.
If Rothbard had never been born, right now Ron Paul might've won Iowa instead of Huckabee.
Juan:Nathyn, I highly doubt that 'miniarchists' believe in voluntary funding of their gov't. Can you provide some references ?
Most actual Minarchist Libertarians do advocate voluntary taxation. I'll see if I can dig up a better reference than Nozick, but that should be good enough, since I'm sure you're aware of his influence.
Juan:I admit I always thought that minimal governments were supposed to be funded using taxation. I can't imagine how a minimal government based on contributions would work. It would still be a monopolistic provider of services, SO, its services would be low quality, SO people won't pay. So, what's next ? Some people set up a competing government ? Wouldn't that be market-anarchism ?
That's sort of the position of Objectivists. They propose to make the funding voluntary yet they still want to maintain a territorial monopoly, I.E. they would forcibly outlaw competition. So if only they would give up the territorial monopoly they would be market anarchists. As soon as they grant genuine competition in their so-called "governments", it becomes anarchism.
JonBostwick:You mean what person has the final say and can bring violence upon any person who disagrees with his decision?
That is what I'm wondering. Is violence the end result?
Nathyn:Also, this thread belongs in the politics forum.
The question asked is economic. I'd like to know if enforcement is possible without violence. As far as I can tell a defrauded party would have to take the law into his own hands, thus creating a rule of man, rather than a rule of law. We all know where that leads.
reidbump: JonBostwick:You mean what person has the final say and can bring violence upon any person who disagrees with his decision? That is what I'm wondering. Is violence the end result?
Well yes, anarcho-capitalist don't ban the use of violence but say that it can be used for protection. In the case when someone breaches the contract he is agressing against the other party and therefore to protect latters interests violence is justified. Without any possibility to force the agressor to compensate the world society would consist of people trying to trick each other. Anarcho-capitalist don't expect that in order for the free-market society to work people would have to be completely moral.
reidbump: Nathyn:Also, this thread belongs in the politics forum. The question asked is economic. I'd like to know if enforcement is possible without violence. As far as I can tell a defrauded party would have to take the law into his own hands, thus creating a rule of man, rather than a rule of law. We all know where that leads.
In a system of justice it is irrelevant what one man intends to do. What matters is what everyone else does in reaction. If one man decides that another man has injured him, he may try to do justice himself. If everyone else decides that the other man is in fact guilty under the law, they will not protect him. The conflict is then limited to these two men. If the first man does not like to produce his own security, he may appeal to his preferred authority for justice, and this authority will then pursue justice from the criminal, who once again will not be protected by everyone else should he have broken their laws.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
reidbump: The question asked is economic. I'd like to know if enforcement is possible without violence. As far as I can tell a defrauded party would have to take the law into his own hands, thus creating a rule of man, rather than a rule of law. We all know where that leads.
It's not easy to give a succinct answer to the question of law and justice.
Third party arbitration is part of the answer, especially when it comes to contractual violations and torts. For crime and other such things, it's a little trickier to explain. Of course, defensive force is allowed. Retaliatory force, on the other hand, can only be allowed after a public proceeding (court trial). That's specifically to avoid vigilanteism and confusion about who is initiating force. Why should criminals submit to trial and restitution? The main answer there is ostracism. The degree of ostracism must necessarily be appropriate to the crime to provide enough incentive for the criminal to participate in the proceedings. Ostracism and peer pressure can do much in this regard, especially WITHOUT the coercive power of government.
For more info, you might want to read up on common law courts, Merchant law, arbitration, etc. Bruce Benson's book The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State is an excellent book in this regard, although it's a rather tough read. David Friedman has also written some good stuff in this regard.
Hope that helps to answer your question.
I was trying to preempt your follow up. The only person who can bring violence against any person who disagrees with his decision is the government.
For someone who lives in the modern world saturated with institutionalized violence to think that market justice would increase the amount of violence in society is absurd.
How will people work out problems peacefully? You see plenty of examples of it every day.
Brainpolice: Juan:I admit I always thought that minimal governments were supposed to be funded using taxation. I can't imagine how a minimal government based on contributions would work. It would still be a monopolistic provider of services, SO, its services would be low quality, SO people won't pay. So, what's next ? Some people set up a competing government ? Wouldn't that be market-anarchism ?That's sort of the position of Objectivists. They propose to make the funding voluntary yet they still want to maintain a territorial monopoly, I.E. they would forcibly outlaw competition. So if only they would give up the territorial monopoly they would be market anarchists. As soon as they grant genuine competition in their so-called "governments", it becomes anarchism.
Furthermore, government (like other monopolies) doesn't have absolute control. For instance, even if taxation is theft, the government has to mislead the public by how much they're actually stealing through a complicated tax policy. If the people knew, they wouldn't tolerate it.Under Minarchism, then, there isn't any problem because everybody knows what the government does: providing basic security and protection of property rights through civil law and that's all. Under such a system -- assuming Neoclassical ideas -- there wouldn't be any problem with the government being a "monopoly." If the government tried to grow any larger than Minarchism, the people have the natural right of revolt (as described by John Locke) and they would do that, because it's in their subjective self-interest.
The government, as it stands now, is not to be understood as a problem because it's a "monopoly" anymore than large firms should ber regarded as problematic for having large market share: The problem is that it's gotten out of hand, where it infringes on liberty and the public isn't aware of it. Under Minarchism, both of those conditions would not exist, thus "tyrannical" government would not exist.
Nathyn:Juan, it's supported by the same naive idealism that seems to support Market Anarchism: Libertarians either deny the existence of public goods or they say that self-interest is a driving force in establishing public goods and government just stands in the way.
Most libertarians do not deny the existence of public goods. I don't think most market anarchists do either. You must realize that the traditional barriers to voluntary provision of public goods can be overcome in a variety of ways, and that any government provision of ANY good must overcome the economic calculation problem.
Governments need not provide public goods any more than they need to provide for mail delivery. I suppose arguments could be made that the efficacy of government provision of public goods is greater than market solutions, but I haven't really heard anyone directly and thoroughly compare the two institutions in that regard. If anyone has read anything on it, please let me know.
I believe minarchism will generally fail for Hayekian reasons. People will always perceive problems that they'd like to see fixed. Due to the distribution of knowledge in society, only a small subset of a population will understand these problems (if they are indeed problems at all). As society advances, this subset will grow smaller as knowledge becomes more specialized and problems more exotic. Non-experts, as Bryan Caplan has pointed out, have little incentives to actually hold unbiased opinions. Since the vast majority of the population will always be non-experts concerning a particular "problem", the majority of the populace will often believe "someone needs to do something". The medias will always tend to report the most news to the widest audience, so expecting accurate information to come from them is likely foolish. Government, I think, must grow by demand.
The only things that I could think of that would stop this are a deontological libertarian ethic instilled in most people, or an education in how our society actually works (e.g., how prices aggregate knowledge and signal action). I suppose market anarchism wouldn't be any more stable to the above mentioned problems, though.
Well, that is certainly one option. Another option I would pay attention to is forced mandates. A similar question could be asked about the state. If I refuse to show up, so what? What can the state do? Force me to show? Yes.
Now, there are problems with that, and they certaintly are not all simple ones to work out in a deductive way. I think you'd have to simply go with empirical analysis. What happens today? Could that be similar to what would happen in a contractual society?
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Juan:I'm not sure I follow your reasoning Nathyn. Also, are you advocating miniarchism ? Or just discussing the theory ? Have you read these ? http://homepage.mac.com/dmhart/Molinari/Thesis.html#RTFToC21 http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm
He's just calling Rothbard incompetent and rambling on about how Market Anarchy leads to chaos in accordance to some quote he doesn't understand by Rothbard, no real intellectual substance.
As for public goods, that's really quite ridiculous. First, how are you defining public goods? Are you defining them as goods that cannot be provided on the free market? If so, which ones would those be?Or is this an argument about some goods not being profitable on the free market, in which case you beg the question. Perhaps goods not applicable to free market pressures due hold some value, but certainly on the free market not enough value making them allocatively inefficient projects, thus sucking away resources and social welfare.
libertarian:There are no "rights" under anarchy
libertarian:They do whatever the subscriber wants them to do. Individuals would ultimately collaborate together and come up with peaceful solutions to fraud. They would eventually become so dependant of each other that fraud would hurt both parties. "Rights" are subjective. People interpret differently of what is considered a "right." Yes, there may be more violence in anarchy.
You were talking about universal/general/given rights like "right to a fair trial", "right to live". The kind of stuff that's on the law books. They were also including stuff like rights resulting from a contract or from tradition.
Nathyn: In a democracy where over 50% of the voting population are Libertarians, it's not clear how the mere existence of government as a monopoly would lead to oppression.
Nathyn:even if taxation is theft
Oridinary people are stupid, selfish, mean, ignorant, arrogant, apathetic, prejudiced, bigoted, empirical, close-minded, and coercive. Gov't is going to grow because of these tendencies.
libertarian:Oridinary people are I am stupid, selfish, mean, ignorant, arrogant, apathetic, prejudiced, bigoted, empirical, close-minded, and coercive.
Oridinary people are I am stupid, selfish, mean, ignorant, arrogant, apathetic, prejudiced, bigoted, empirical, close-minded, and coercive.
Insults only demean yourself.