So how exactly would you ensure that these private military corporations and volunteer groups wouldn't wage warfare over more territory? or become states themselves? What is preventing people from Civil War without a State such as ours?
In the Anarchic society of Tribal England, civil conflict was the norm among the Celts, Jutes, and other tribes. In a world of Private Property rights, why wouldn't land owners engage in conflict to obtain more land?
Jon Irenicus: Erm, they're services provided much like healthcare is... so yes, there is a "need" for them, and yes, they can exist, and no, there's no need for a monopoly over them.
Erm, they're services provided much like healthcare is... so yes, there is a "need" for them, and yes, they can exist, and no, there's no need for a monopoly over them.
Law is not a need, or a luxury item that you can freely decide to buy more of or refuse to buy at all. Law is a neccessity for any group of agents larger than ONE. If you're all by yourself in a country, then by all means, you're free to buy as much or as little law as you want. The moment there's two of us there there HAS to be law (a set of rules) under which we will behave and act (one of the hallmarks of civilization, btw). None of us can decide to BUY or TRADE more or less of it. There definitely cannot be TWO sets of laws (I'll have mine, you'll have yours and we can also happily trade them amongs ourselves in an efficient "free-market" fashion. "Want some of my law today? I feel like I got just too much of it lately")., as they will be no better than NO law at all. Extrapolate now from two to any number of agents.
Btw, who would you consider to have the "monopoly" of the single law in our 2 person country, and explain how a "poly-centric" legal system (two sets of laws) could possibly be better than a single one in regulating our interactions.
Z.
Law is not a need, or a luxury item that you can freely decide to buy more of or refuse to buy at all. Law is a neccessity
No, it isn't. A necessity is whatever an economic agent deems it to be. And as for who has the "monopoly", your government does and every other government by preventing its "citizens" from patronising a protection provider of their choice. Rather, I'd like for you to explain how monopolising a service's provision means it'll be better than a competitively provided one (that includes law), other than by steamrolling a One True Law TM upon all its citizens and unilaterally declaring when disputes are over. Final decider or some such gibberish.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
The state (with its uniform legal system and enforcement) can protect my freedom and property from attacks launched by any other agent from within and from outside the country. In anarchy, anyone with more power than myself can come and take everything I own, including my freedom (slavery) and I would have no recourse whatsoever.
I'm sorry, but why can't the latter happen within the territory of a state? What recourse do you have from the state itself, if it decides to take everything you own?
And remember, you can't just say, "That's unlikely."
If I can't know when and what group can decide to just take everything I own, it is much harder to optimally distribute my capital between productive and defensive means.
Again, I don't understand how the state solves this problem. Particularly because the state, being... the state, cannot know how best to distribute its own capital to provide you defense.
EDIT: I'm sorry, I haven't followed along with the entire thread, so maybe the following point has already been brought up. But z is now criticizing polycentric law. What exactly do you think we have in the United States? A recent bit of good news involved the DOJ deciding not to prosecute medical marijuana users from states in which medical marijuana is legal. Until recently, DEA agents were arresting sick people that legally bought and used pot.
My God, how could the Feds jail people that are following the law of their state? I thought we only had one, consistent set of laws!
z1235: There definitely cannot be TWO sets of laws (I'll have mine, you'll have yours and we can also happily trade them amongs ourselves in an efficient "free-market" fashion. "Want some of my law today? I feel like I got just too much of it lately")., as they will be no better than NO law at all.
There definitely cannot be TWO sets of laws (I'll have mine, you'll have yours and we can also happily trade them amongs ourselves in an efficient "free-market" fashion. "Want some of my law today? I feel like I got just too much of it lately")., as they will be no better than NO law at all.
Then how do 6 million people commute from NJ to NYC everyday? NY and NJ do not have the same set of rules and laws.
DD5:Then how do 6 million people commute from NJ to NYC everyday?
Most of them on government provided roads, trains etc. why do you ask?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Michael J Green: I'm sorry, but why can't the latter happen within the territory of a state? What recourse do you have from the state itself, if it decides to take everything you own?
The law and its enforcement is the recourse. First, before I even move to it I can study the law in a state and study how the state has respected it in the past. If I like what I see, I move there and take my chances. With anarchy, personally, I wouldn't even care how many and what kind of laws there are covering the same territory, as most conflicts will inevitably be decided by who's got the bigger guns. The latter situation is much more volatile and unpredictable, and I would be reluctant to move my family and productive resources there.
Michael J Green: Again, I don't understand how the state solves this problem. Particularly because the state, being... the state, cannot know how best to distribute its own capital to provide you defense.
The state should only be there to arbitrate and enforce the law (protecting me from internal trespasses over my property and freedom) and to defend me from external aggressors, for which I'm willing to pay taxes. An efficient and well run state would have embedded checks and balances that - short of preventing - would at least signal major changes in its legal system (or the states interpretations of it) that may be detrimental to my property or liberty. In anarchy, not so much. If my town had a great harvest and the town over wasn't as lucky with theirs, a "cooperating group" from there could just change "their" law to allow stealing from our silos "just this one time". The only recourse I would have is hiring Johny Knees and Freddy Knuckles in a hurry to save me from them. What Johny and Freddy may want from me next year in return for their favor is also another question that I'd rather not ponder. So much for "free market" law and "free market" enforcement/defense. Thanks, but no thanks.
z1235:The law and its enforcement is the recourse.
z1235:as most conflicts will inevitably be decided by who's got the bigger guns.
you have to say why overwhelming force of a single armed gang 'administering' over an unarmed populace, would be more amenable to justice than any other arrangement. i don't envy you your position.
z1235:The state should only be there to arbitrate and enforce the law (protecting me from internal trespasses over my property and freedom) and to defend me from external aggressors, for which I'm willing to pay taxes.
more reasonable to think of the economic incentives present in the alternative arrangements to judge which 'system' is more likely to deliver the goods over time. will it be monopoly? where by definition; justice is decided by the biggest armed gang going, and we have made the gang the biggest gang. at time 1? or would it be where competing agencies vie to keep customers paying, outbid each other to provide better protection at lower cost than each other, and be accountable, and who are fully incentivised to broker agreements with each other as to how future disagreements will be solved in a civilized manner, rather than through brutality?. given the right push, the path dependancy of an anarchist arrangement that had properly got off the ground, has much better prospects than any minarchy that gets off the ground on the right foot.
over time, precisely the incentives that would keep anarchist pdas delivering quality service are junked in the minarchy, the incentives under a minarchy are to be unjust and brutal. there is no other game in town.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
GilesStratton:Most of them on government provided roads, trains etc. why do you ask?
Governments provide nothing Giles. They redistribute. Remember, when you become a tax producer, you will feel the burn too.
liberty student: GilesStratton:Most of them on government provided roads, trains etc. why do you ask? Governments provide nothing Giles. They redistribute. Remember, when you become a tax producer, you will feel the burn too.
Oh these awful Freudian slips. How is it that we have been conditioned to think of the state as a provider?
"In the Anarchic society of Tribal England, civil conflict was the norm among the Celts, Jutes, and other tribes. In a world of Private Property rights, why wouldn't land owners engage in conflict to obtain more land?"
The Anglo-Saxons had kings, the Celts had kings and tribal chieftains, same with other tribes. Perhaps it's was more decentralized than today, but I don't think you could classify such structures as being truly anarchic.
nirgrahamUK:you have to say why overwhelming force of a single armed gang 'administering' over an unarmed populace, would be more amenable to justice than any other arrangement.
What justice? Or who defines "justice" in a "free-market" "poly-centric" legal system. The "coordinated group" with a more thoughtful legal system or the one with the bigger guns? This is going to be fun, I agree.
Snowflake:How is it that we have been conditioned to think of the state as a provider?
Well, for some people it may be true.
your questions about justice: to address these i need to know where you are coming from. I have a theory of justice.... do you? (hint :mine is libertarian)
on the other matter. picture 10 individuals on a street. they have guns. if any 1 of them were to 'go rogue', he would have 9 opponents. compare this to 9 unarmed individuals who gave all their weapons to the 10th person....
I would be willing to bet serious money that person's propensity toward anarchy would end being inversely proportional to their ACTUAL exposure to anything resembling anarchy in their lives -- or directly proportional to the amount of benefits they have enjoyed through their lives by a well functioning society (monopoly law and enforcement, included). One needs to lose, or be exposed to a notable risk of losing something, in order to start appreciating it and not take it for granted.
I wonder if any research (polling) has been done along these lines.
nirgrahamUK:your questions about justice: to address these i need to know where you are coming from. I have a theory of justice.... do you? (hint :mine is libertarian)
Why would you concern yourself about my theory of justice? It'd be a "free market" and we could each have and implement our own. Mine could be "kill everything that moves" for all you care. I say you stick with yours and I stick with mine and we let them slug it out in a proper "free market" fashion. Deal?