Someone asked me a question over the weekend:
What if, under the anarchist system of protection insurance, all insurances find a particular person uninsurable? I.e., he is too high liability for the companies, because, for example, he lives in too dangerous a neighborhood (e.g., a Black person living in a White supremacist neighborhood). And the premium required to pay for his protection is too high for him to afford, while no charity organization in town is willing to pick up the bill.
My answer was: first, in the case when all these things pile up, the person has to move to a safer neighborhood or live with a reality of no protection. That sucks, and his rights to live in peace should not be violated, but such is the reality. Also, what's the alternative? Forcing all the citizens of the town to pay for his insurance or, worse yet, accept some sort of monopoly of a protection agency that will cover him too?
Second, under the government, the situation may not be any better. When Blacks moved in to many communities in Brooklyn, NY or Roxbury, MA, many Jews had a choice whether to move or continue living there despite the increasing crime rates. Most moved to Boroughpark, NY or Brookline, MA, but some communities stayed. They made a decision to live in a place of greater crime, and there is a lot of crime (lots of assaults, robberies, rapes, etc.). So, a) it was their decision to stay, and they must pay the price in terms of reality of things, b) though they are supposedly protected by state police, it's almost as if they were not.
I was wondering if anyone has anything to add to my answer. (The other part of the question was: what if he is too rich and too prone to being robbed? My answer was that he has to pay more for protection.)
FlyingAxe: What if, under the anarchist system of protection insurance, all insurances find a particular person uninsurable? I.e., he is too high liability for the companies, because, for example, he lives in too dangerous a neighborhood (e.g., a Black person living in a White supremacist neighborhood). And the premium required to pay for his protection is too high for him to afford, while no charity organization in town is willing to pick up the bill.
Let me pose a slightly different question:
A man lives in an area prone to dangerous forest fires. Naturally, the insurance is incredibly high, too high for him to afford paying. Think about the questions you were asked but with this scenario instead. Why would it be okay for this man to force other people to pay for his reckless decisions?
The whole essence of the question is that under anarchy, some citizens will remain unprotected because they are too poor and/or because they live in unfavorable conditions. That is why, the argument goes, a minirchist system is better: it will not leave any citizens unprotected in principle. (That, by the way, also includes children, old people, and the homeless, whose protection scheme under anarchy is also not entirely clear to me.)
It will not be able to protect everyone. Even so, do we really want to subsidize risky behavior? Look at the quote in my tag. Is that really what we want? To fill the world with reckless people? At the expense of those who don't take unnecessary risks?
Helloween: 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!
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!
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.
Helloween: 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.
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.
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.
Helloween: 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!
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 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?
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.
Helloween: 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?
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.
Helloween: 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!
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?
Helloween: 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.
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?
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
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.
Helloween: 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.
Firstly, I did not make the statement in bold. I did not ever say that the mafia would be better for libertarian rights. So I'm not sure why you would accuse me of such a statement. Secondly, the reason I brought up the mafia was because you were making an unsubstantiated assertion. You claimed that the only kind of competition possible in regards to PDAs is force. This is not true. I brought up the mafia because the criminal elements within in are pretty bad. Yet even the mafia can reach agreements with each other so that they are not competing with force. So, if the mafia can reach agreements so as to not be at all out war, I would think that honest people would have an even easier time of reaching agreements so as to not be at war with each other.
Helloween: 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.
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.
You would greatly benefit from reading those posts carefully. Those posts directly address what is justice and law and crime. Is English your second language? I don't mean any offense, but you seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension.
Helloween: 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.
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.
You do not seem to understand what the mafia is. You can choose to become a member or not. The mafia does not conscript (it may threaten you to do something for them, but that does not make you a part of the gang itself). The mafia does pick who will be "protected", but that is not the same as joining the gang itself.
Helloween: 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.
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.
Just like the very nature of a state. At best, the laws of any given state will sometimes coincide with "libertarian laws" (whatever those may be). Typically, the statutory laws of the state are in direct opposition to what would be "libertarian laws".
Helloween: 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.
No. I won't all of the state abolished. The court system does not protect "libertarian rights". There are many crimes for which people are prosecuted and incarcerated that are in direct opposition to "libertarian rights".
Helloween: 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.
And how does this forward "libertarian rights"? The monopoly justice system enforces its statutes, most of which contradict "libertarian rights". How is this a good thing?
Helloween: 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 really suggest you read those two posts carefully. It is clear that you did not bother to understand what you were reading, as this paragraph perfectly illustrates.
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.
Your assumption here is that market police / legal system would simply duplicate the existing statist system. This is likely false, although no one can know for sure. Unlike in our current legal system in Ruritani murdering a murderer is total kosher, and most career criminal types would likely exist in a state of persona non grata, undesirable to any private protection agency and outcast from society at large. Think 'rep' creds on a forum.
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.
If any insurance company going to give car insurance to someone who crashes cars into walls for fun? No company would protect a career criminal as it would not be profitable. These people would be persona non grata.
Exaclty! And so there exists no one who sells such insurances today. It isn't feasible to compete with force. That's no way to freedom. It's a pipe dream.
Helloween: 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.
You mean, just like when the state comes in to steal people's homes to give them to a private organization? This is called eminent domain. Here is a link to a CBS news report on some of the various eminent domain abuses. I will quote some of more important parts:
Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.
In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain. But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters. [emphasis added.]
In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain.
But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters. [emphasis added.]
So, it turns out that the state does exactly what you fear. How can you support an organization that steals not just property, but houses, only to give it some private group?