Ayn Rand on Anarcho Capitalism

She said something like this "what if the both the police of court A, and court B come to resolve a situation between a customer of court A and court B"

Both want to satisfy thier customers so why not just punish the opposing customer regardless. Wouldn't competition here just lead to companies that would be on the side of thier customers no matter what? And that lead to warfare between companies? I must agree with Ayn Rand. 

Both courts, A and B, do want to satisfy their customers, but their customers are not just the plaintiff and defendant. Their customers are all potential plaintiffs and defendants. If a court (or arbitrator, or any such agency) earned a reputation for unfair judgments biased towards their customer, few people will pay for their arbitration services. Some people might want to hire an arbitrator that is unjustly biased in their own favor, but the other party would have to agree on an arbitrator, usually in a contract long before arbitration is necessary. Why would the other party agree to arbitration by a business with a reputation for unfair judgments? And why would you want that? You wouldn't know ahead of time which way the arbitrator would be biased towards, you or the other party. Even if an arbitrator is guaranteed to be biased towards your side - say by extra payment from you - they would have such a reputation in very short period of time and no one would pay for their services and they'd go out of business.

Wouldn't all people pay for the company that protects you regardless, Out of fear that you may be at the receiveing end of their "justice"? I know I wouldn't want to take the risk. Then all companies would be forced to take that same stance out of a loss of market share. This would then lead to warfare, it simply couldn't work.

ChaseCola:

Both want to satisfy thier customers so why not just punish the opposing customer regardless

First of all, warfare is expensive. Thus, there are strong economic incentives to come to a reasonable resolution with opposing companies.  In fact, it makes even more sense to work out contracts with them ahead of time. 

Second, the service being provided is justice, not protection at all costs.  Protecting robbers and murderers from the consequences of their actions is not going to inspire confidence in a company's other customers, who want to be protected from robbery and murder.

Ayn Rand called these "competing governments", without bothering to break down legitimate government services into their basic components.  Do that, and it becomes easier to see how it works. 

 

macsnafu:

ChaseCola:

Both want to satisfy thier customers so why not just punish the opposing customer regardless

First of all, warfare is expensive. Thus, there are strong economic incentives to come to a reasonable resolution with opposing companies.  In fact, it makes even more sense to work out contracts with them ahead of time. 

Second, the service being provided is justice, not protection at all costs.  Protecting robbers and murderers from the consequences of their actions is not going to inspire confidence in a company's other customers, who want to be protected from robbery and murder.

Ayn Rand called these "competing governments", without bothering to break down legitimate government services into their basic components.  Do that, and it becomes easier to see how it works. 

 

 

I think you just won me over. I agree

ChaseCola:

She said something like this "what if the both the police of court A, and court B come to resolve a situation between a customer of court A and court B"

Both want to satisfy thier customers so why not just punish the opposing customer regardless. Wouldn't competition here just lead to companies that would be on the side of thier customers no matter what? And that lead to warfare between companies? I must agree with Ayn Rand. 

 

 This is a tired argument.

Companies are profit oriented. They want to maximize income while minimizing cost. Declaring war against the other court for every incident would be good for bringing in revenue. (Who wouldn't want to hire a company that will defend you even when you are the criminal?) But the cost of constant warfare would make this strategy not viable.  Like all market entities these companies would have to walk the extremely difficult line between satisfying customers and keeping costs down. Where no market exists for a good people often imagine that the challenge of suppling the good and satisfy consumers would be too difficult for a company to balance, however, those people are always wrong. Its true that providing justice is hard and that is why only the market, which demands the most from suppliers, can supply it.

Plus, in market anarchy courts and security companies would probably be separate entities. 

JonBostwick:

Companies are profit oriented. They want to maximize income while minimizing cost. Declaring war against the other court for every incident would be good for bringing in revenue. (Who wouldn't want to hire a company that will defend you even when you are the criminal?)

 

 

p.s. mcafsnu answered this. It is not desirable to pay dues to a company that will defend one even when one is a criminal BECAUSE you would be contributing revenue to a company that was protecting others be they innocent or criminal, so you would be paying for protection to a company that is protecting your would be assailants !

Here is my question though:  If these "courts" are voluntary then why should I abide by their decision?

Example:  You and I are having a property line dispute so you take me to one of these "courts" for arbitration.  The "court" rules in your favor.  So what?  I can still tell you to suck it because I don't face any REAL consequences from not obey your "courts" opinion.  What?  You gonna shoot me to enforce the opinion of that court?  What if I shoot you first and just take your land?  Is the court going to send their goon squad to my house and rough me up a bit to enforce their opinion?  What if I hire a bigger goon squad to protect me?  Where are we then?

I don't believe it can work without some coercive force.  Why go to some arbitrator when I can just get some of my friends together and burn your house down and drive you out?  There's no laws remember?

This is one thing anarcho-capitalist have never been able to explain just HOW this situation can be avoided.  If there is no government, no laws, no police, no courts with any real authority then why can't I just take your stuff?  What?  Your PDA going to stop me?  What if I can hire a stronger one?  Then were are we?  Or what if I just pay the head of your PDA to ignore you?  The old addage is always going to be true:  Money talks and bullshit walks. 

Did you even read any of the previous responses? These firms could easily just arrange, for instance, for your water provider to cut off supply if you fail to comply to its judgements, and offer no defence for doing so. It could similarly do so with your credit cards etc. Firms already do behave in this manner. What is so difficult about extending it to PDAs? It really does not help your case that the 'money talks and bullshit walks' adage can just as easily be applied to government.

kingmonkey:

Here is my question though:  If these "courts" are voluntary then why should I abide by their decision?

Example:  You and I are having a property line dispute so you take me to one of these "courts" for arbitration.  The "court" rules in your favor.  So what?  I can still tell you to suck it because I don't face any REAL consequences from not obey your "courts" opinion.

It's quite simple really, you've just never bothered thinking about it. All PDAs sign agreements between each other in advance, concerning which court they would go to. Within the contract, they include clauses to the effect that both clients must, before the court begins its trial, sign a contract with the plaintiff or defendant, whoever the other person is, accepting any decision the court takes. A person would only sign such a contract if they were certain that the court was impartial, which would be dictated by its reputation.

In the case where money is involved, it's possible that both parties place the maximum they may have to pay with a third party such as a bank, for sakekeeping. The bank would then release this money after the court's decision.

If this concerns something like a jail sentence, and you decide not to abide by the contract you preliminarily signed, then your own PDA is no longer responsible for protecting you, and so the opponents PDA may very well decide to enforce whatever decision was made in the court. You would also be blacklisted, and it's unlikely that any other PDAs would take up the responsibility of protecting you, if you're a known criminal and do not abide by your own contracts. Remember, reputation, even on a private level, is everything. Ruin it, say "suck it", and when the other PDA comes knocking on your door, no one will be there to protect you. Also, I doubt your friends would stand up for you in such a case. Helping a criminal run away from the law would not bode well for their own reputations either.

kingmonkey:

What?  You gonna shoot me to enforce the opinion of that court?  What if I shoot you first and just take your land?  Is the court going to send their goon squad to my house and rough me up a bit to enforce their opinion?  What if I hire a bigger goon squad to protect me?  Where are we then?

How are you going to shoot me and take my land? I have a PDA remember. Even if you succeed in killing your opponent, the PDA can sue you for murder, and if they win in a court to which your own PDA agrees to, then as I have described above, your PDA would be relieved of their responsibilities to protect you, and the law of lex talionis would oblige your opponent's PDA to kill you, since it would want to uphold a reputation of protecting, or at least avenging, it's clients. Regarding land, people have wills you know, and I'm sure PDAs would be tasked with making sure those come to fruition too.

kingmonkey:

I don't believe it can work without some coercive force.  Why go to some arbitrator when I can just get some of my friends together and burn your house down and drive you out?  There's no laws remember?

 

Once again, I have my own PDA ensuring my security. And yes, laws do exist, the main one being reputation. If you go on a criminal rampage, you void the contract binding you and your PDA, and I am free to prosecute you, and then the scenario I have described above comes into effect.

kingmonkey:

This is one thing anarcho-capitalist have never been able to explain just HOW this situation can be avoided.  If there is no government, no laws, no police, no courts with any real authority then why can't I just take your stuff?  What?  Your PDA going to stop me?  What if I can hire a stronger one?  Then were are we?  Or what if I just pay the head of your PDA to ignore you?  The old addage is always going to be true:  Money talks and bullshit walks. 

 

So now that I've described in detail how such a scenario would unfold, I would just like to remind you what a PDA stands for - Private Defence Agency. Read the second word - DEFENCE. No Defence agency would attack another one, just because you paid it, it's expensive, unnecessary, ruins their reputation, and destroys their client base. You would need to hire a criminal organisation such as the Mafia, but then those organisations have historically been at their peak when the governments screws up, like with prohibition.

And that addage wouldn't work well in anarcho-capitalism. So let's say a PDA sells out to you, it gains short term profit. But that's where it ends. No one will deal with an organisation of assassins that is easily bribed. The for profit organisation will have to be careful regarding its reputation, or it will lose its clients.

This is something governments and monopoly police forces don't have to worry about. No matter how many bribes they take, how inefficient they are, how expensive they are, they know you'll come to them, because you have no choice. There's no competition. 

 

Has everyone here read Roy A. Childs's, Jr.'s "Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand"? He argues that on Rand's own philosophy, she should embrace anarcho-capitalism.

 Roderick Long also responds to an Objectivist, Robert Bidinotto, in a series of blogposts "Anarchism as Constitutionalism."

 See also, Roderick Long's "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections."

Then there is George H. Smith's "In Defense of Rational Anarchism," which also addresses Rand on anarchism. 

This is possibly the most polemic issue between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists and possibly one of the most interesting (but oldest) discusions for libertarians. I know this thread is already a couple of weeks old, but, apparently is still active. Just as a recomendation on reading material, I highly suggest to those interested  Bruce Benson´s vast reference to the topic (available on Mises.org) . He makes the point of the past existence of such privately operated legal systems (granted they are primitive, but existed nonetheless), and that much touted Randian phrase "self-interest" (well explained by other participants on this forum), which, of course, also would affect these privately-owned legal providers without question. I think this issue is as old as libertarianism, but is still worth discussing.