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?
That's only a good definition of government if we use it in the Nockean sense. I prefer 'an organization with a territorial monopoly on violence or decision making'. Which is a serious problem to have, since if I had a monopoly on decision making I would decide all your money was mine.
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
gotloucky, you describe a part of the government that I, and all minarchists, want to abolish. We want to keep the criminal court system. Their only problem today, is that they don't apply criminal laws on government force. Otherwise, they do protect peoples negative rights.
Meistro:
if I had a monopoly on decision making I would decide all your money was mine.
I bet you'd do the same if you had enough violent power to not be detered by a libertarian monopoly on justice. Freedom will only be achieved when enough people act to protect libertarian rights, not when thugs "compete" forcefully with each other. That only leads to the non-libertarian monopoly we have today.
(Formatting and quoting is really weird in this editor)
Helloween: gotloucky, you describe a part of the government that I, and all minarchists, want to abolish. We want to keep the criminal court system. Their only problem today, is that they don't apply criminal laws on government force. Otherwise, they do protect peoples negative rights.
This is nuts. The courts do not solely protect people's negative rights. More than 50% of inmates in Federal prisons are from drug related crimes. Read here, here, and here for more info. Don't forget all the people who are sued for violating IP laws. More negative rights being violated there.
Drug laws are not part of the criminal law code, but separate legislation (like tax legislation and so on). At least where i live. The criminal courts of the government is today the ONLY organization which protects your negative rights to any degree! They only need to abolish government's exceptions from criminal laws, and voila we have a libertarian society.
You are throwing out the baby with the bath water when you want to abolish the criminal court system, just because that part too is "called government". Look at the reality of their actions, don't just stare yourself blind on their formal title.
Helloween: You are throwing out the baby with the bath water when you want to abolish the criminal court system, just because that part too is "called government".
You are throwing out the baby with the bath water when you want to abolish the criminal court system, just because that part too is "called government".
This is tiring. At no point have I stated that I want an end to a court system. I just don't want a monopoly court system. Please stop mischaracterizing my beliefs. Again, from your statements, it is clear to me that you have not read the two posts I provided to you earlier.
It seems then, that anarcho capitalists are minarchists under another name. Because you don't accept any anti-libertarian competition against a libertarian justice system, do you? For example, you wouldn't accept NSDAP as a competitor, and their aggressions against for example jews according to their laws. So you *do* want a monopoly in effect! You just don't use the word "government" for the monopoly.
It seems then, that anarcho capitalists are minarchists under another name.
No. That is not the case. Anarcho-capitalists do not want a state.
Because you don't accept any anti-libertarian competition against a libertarian justice system, do you? For example, you wouldn't accept NSDAP as a competitor, and their aggressions against for example jews according to their laws.
You have absolutely no idea what law is. Law is the peaceful resolution of disputes. This holds true for whether it is law governing a specific organization or the law of the land. If you were to read Clayton's posts, you would understand that the Nazi aggression against Jews existed under statutory law, not customary law.
So you *do* want a monopoly in effect! You just don't use the word "government" for the monopoly.
No, I do not. I believe I asked you stop mischaracterizing my beliefs and statements. I have to ask, are you here to debate honestly, or are you a troll? In addition, it appears that you do not know what a monopoly is:
Wiktionary: Monopoly A situation, by legal privilege or other agreement, in which solely one party (company, cartel etc.) exclusively provides a particular product or service, dominating that market and generally exerting powerful control over it. An exclusive control over the trade or production of a commodity or service through exclusive possession. The privilege granting the exclusive right to exert such control
Monopoly
I do not want there to be exclusive control in the market on law.
Okay, so you want competition among "customary laws". I'll try to read up on how one knows that a certain law is "customary" or not.
But the big problem is what you call "statutory law". How will you deal with those who create and enforce statutory laws?
Well, a great place to start would be those posts I gave you earlier. Another would be the wikipedia entry on customary law. But there really is not competition among customary laws. There can be different resolutions to disputes, but something either is a custom or it isn't. In other words, it's custom to drive on the right side of the road in America, regardless of the statutory law. There aren't competing customs of driving on the left side.
In a customary law society, there is no statutory law. If someone has the ability to create statutory law, then the customs are not long for this world.
I don't understand how you can argue for a monopoly in courts. Just look at today's Supreme Court. Go to their website (or oyez.org ) and read some opinions or listen to oral arguments.
What a circus! Half the judges basically twist the law into whatever they wish to be the desired result (according to their personal political philosophy). The half of the other half do the same, just for the opposite set of views. Scalia supposedly is originalist, but in reality he worships the precedent more, and in fact is a hypocrite (he thinks that Texas can enact sodomy laws, but Illinois cannot enact gun control laws; he seems to be an enemy of abusing Interstate Commerce Clause, but he is ok abusing it to control marijuana growth for cancer patients). Kennedy doesn't know what he is doing at any point of time. Thomas is the most fair and consistent of them all, but also seemingly the most corrupt.
Again, what a joke! Do you think such judges would be favored for their opinion-providing service on a free market?
Not that this is only the case with the Supreme Court. Individual States' courts are equally inept and corrupt. Take, for instance, Texas. Or, on the other side of the spectrum, Connecticut.
Helloween does make some valid points, the most important of which is that having a free market in the production of legal/security services does not necessarily entail having libertarian legal/security services. You don't abolish the State and therefore necessarily have a libertarian world; you abolish the State and have whatever kind of world consumers demand.
That's true. But that's like saying: Markets won't necessarily produce plasma-screen TVs. They will produce whatever the customers desire.
Therefore what? Whatever the markets produce, it will be better than whatever government-run TV factories produce. And with the latter, innovation will happen more slowly, and prices will be higher.
The main advantage of free-market–produced law is that you will have a few version of it coexisting at the same time, competing with each other. And, if it is really true that libertarian natural law is more effective, more fair, and more beneficial to the society, than the society will tend to select for libertarian lawyers and judges.
Or at least it will select for the judges whose "opinions" and legal philosophy would be better for the society. Just like in any other industry.
Unless you have the elitist view that the individual ivory-tower sages know better than the public what the public needs.
Oh no! That's like trusting that "someone else will do it".
The only way is to use our reason and action in order to promote libertarian rights, instead of "competition in itself" without appying our values to it.
An-caps straddle between a description of sociatal evolution, which is totally flawed, obviously! And a nihilistic stand point that everything everyone does is as good as anything. All while somehow trying to deny that all justice necessarily is based on the use of force, as opposed to a market.
Helloween: The only way is to use our reason and action in order to promote libertarian rights, instead of "competition in itself" without appying our values to it.
Reason is great, but it only takes you so far. It's like the market on oranges. Do you know what the price of oranges should be in New York City? What about Paris? No, we cannot know the specific price, but we can know how the price of oranges comes about.
It's the same with law. The details cannot be reasoned out, only the framework.
Helloween: An-caps straddle between a description of sociatal evolution, which is totally flawed, obviously! And a nihilistic stand point that everything everyone does is as good as anything. All while somehow trying to deny that all justice necessarily is based on the use of force, as opposed to a market.
More unsubstantiated assertions. Why do you do this? To what purpose? Do you believe that this is a good method to further debate?