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?
Just a couple of things real quick:
1. In the case of "drunk driving" where no one's hurt, who's the plaintiff exactly?
2. It's one thing to consider "drunk driving" per se to be a crime, but it's another to satisfy a certain level of evidence that a given person was "drunk driving" at a certain point in time.
Note: I put "drunk driving" in quotes because, of course, the term is dependent on an arbitrary threshold (one's blood alcohol level while driving).
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
So, imagine some other scenario. A man rapes his wife. His wife sues him. The man asserts that sexual intercourse with his wife was his right, granted to him by marrying her. The wife asserts that her right to her body is unalianable; in any event, it was not alienated by marrying her husband.
On whose side will the law be?
With all due respect, I don't see how we're finished with the "drunk driving" scenario, so I'd appreciate it if you'd actually address the points I raised in my last post, instead of trying to change the subject.
Well, I changed the subject, because I acquiesced to the (implicit) objection that drunk driving is a victimless crime.
If you insist, one could say that by driving through one's territory while drunk, one broke the contract that stipulated that one is not allowed to drive drunk through one's territory. (I mean, I could also stipulate, even today, that you're not allowed to show up naked in my restaurant.) But I don't see what the owner can do besides forcibly removing the driver (or the nudist) from his territory. There may be an issue of a tresspass, but I don't see what the punishment could be for that besides, again, forced removal.
(As an aside, this seems to be a major difference between the natural law and the positive law: in the latter, you can apply punishment for breaking the law as a preventive/discouraging measure. In the former, such a thing would not be appropriate. One exception could be the scenario I proposed in a separate thread: if my neighbor is building an atomic bomb on his ranch, can I invade his property and forcefully disassemble it to protect myself before it exploded?)
That is why I changed the subject to a scenario where the charges of crime (violation of one's rights) are clear to everyone.
I value laws as good or bad depending on how well they protect "negative rights". Drunk driving should be a crime in so far as it causes a danger for others. As should for example firing a gun randomly on a crowded street. (Also, it could violate the drivers contract with the company operating the road or renting out the car).
But much of the discussion here is instead focused on if laws are good or bad depending on the process which led to the law. Even if everyone else in the world thought that it is good to initiate force against others, I would disagree. I advocate negative rights and my moral is not subject to any majority or customs or even contracts, and I'm in favor of laws that protect negative rights no matter how they come into being. And fortunately, many basic criminal laws today describe how each and everyone of us has the right to his property and may not be threatened or assaulted. That's a very good base to build upon when the (rest of the) government and its exception from following criminal law, is abolished.
@Helloween
Part of the reason we discuss the process which creates law is because we believe that it would lead to a more libertarian world. Having a monopoly on violence does not ensure libertarian principles. In fact, by definition, it does not because it means that they are using violence in order to keep others from competing in the legal system. Monopolies on violence have led to such creations as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Communist Cuba, slavery in the US, Jim Crow laws in the US, etc.
Flying Axe:Well, I changed the subject, because I acquiesced to the (implicit) objection that drunk driving is a victimless crime. If you insist, one could say that by driving through one's territory while drunk, one broke the contract that stipulated that one is not allowed to drive drunk through one's territory. (I mean, I could also stipulate, even today, that you're not allowed to show up naked in my restaurant.) But I don't see what the owner can do besides forcibly removing the driver (or the nudist) from his territory. There may be an issue of a tresspass, but I don't see what the punishment could be for that besides, again, forced removal. [...] That is why I changed the subject to a scenario where the charges of crime (violation of one's rights) are clear to everyone.
[...]
Okay, fair enough. That was actually the point I was driving toward with my first point. So if 95% of private road owners wanted to exclude "drunk drivers' from their roads, I'd say they'd be within their rights to do so. The roads in question are their property, after all.
Flying Axe:(As an aside, this seems to be a major difference between the natural law and the positive law: in the latter, you can apply punishment for breaking the law as a preventive/discouraging measure. In the former, such a thing would not be appropriate. One exception could be the scenario I proposed in a separate thread: if my neighbor is building an atomic bomb on his ranch, can I invade his property and forcefully disassemble it to protect myself before it exploded?)
I don't think that's an exception, actually. Your neighbor building an atomic bomb on his ranch would constitute a lethal threat against you IMO, so I'd say you're within your rights to defend yourself from him with up to and including lethal force.
So, how will "competing justice systems" be introduced? Why don't you just start competing here and now? Are you waiting for the monopoly justice system to enact a law that allows you to compete against it?
Monopoly justice systems have also created the most libertarian societies in modern history, like Hong Kong and the early USA. The source of libertarian laws is not competition, but individuals who understand and promote libertarian values. And they have no reason to tolerate any anti-libertarian competition.
Also, I dont know of any society with monopoly on violence. It's everywhere legal to use force in self defence, even in shitholes like Saudi Arabia. But you maybe meant monopoly on retalitariatory violence, punishments for crimes. I don't mind competition in the execution of such violence, but I insist that strict and fair court procedures are followed. And I imagine that it would be very unsatisfactory if one could be judged by more than one court system. Freed by some court systemts and convicted by some, for the same action. A court system is only pratical when it is the single one with authority in its jurisdiction.
On topic, I think that it is right for a third party C to trial person A for his crimes against person B. Regardless of what insurances B has bought.
Helloween: So, how will "competing justice systems" be introduced? Why don't you just start competing here and now? Are you waiting for the monopoly justice system to enact a law that allows you to compete against it?
Why don't you just go and enact the monopoly justice system that you believe works best? Obviously America is a far cry away from being libertarian, and probably whereever you are from it is the same situation.
Helloween: Monopoly justice systems have also created the most libertarian societies in modern history, like Hong Kong and the early USA. The source of libertarian laws is not competition, but individuals who understand and promote libertarian values. And they have no reason to tolerate any anti-libertarian competition.
So what? Monopoly justice systems have created some of the worst tyrannies in the history of the world. Why take your chances when private law is much more likely to be more libertarian?
Helloween: Also, I dont know of any society with monopoly on violence. It's everywhere legal to use force in self defence, even in shitholes like Saudi Arabia. But you maybe meant monopoly on retalitariatory violence, punishments for crimes. I don't mind competition in the execution of such violence, but I insist that strict court procedures are followed. And I imagine that it would be very unsatisfactory if one could be judged by more than one court system. Freed by some court systemts and convicted by some, for the same action. A court system is only pratical when it is the single one with authority in its jurisdiction.
Also, I dont know of any society with monopoly on violence. It's everywhere legal to use force in self defence, even in shitholes like Saudi Arabia. But you maybe meant monopoly on retalitariatory violence, punishments for crimes. I don't mind competition in the execution of such violence, but I insist that strict court procedures are followed. And I imagine that it would be very unsatisfactory if one could be judged by more than one court system. Freed by some court systemts and convicted by some, for the same action. A court system is only pratical when it is the single one with authority in its jurisdiction.
When libertarians talk about the monopoly on violence, they are talking about the monopoly on legitimate violence (i.e. the state). The mafia, even if it uses a lot of violence, does not use legitimate (i.e. lawful) violence. The situation that you describe already exists in America anyway. Ever hear of OJ Simpson? Found innocent in criminal court but guilty in civil court.
Helloween: But much of the discussion here is instead focused on if laws are good or bad depending on the process which led to the law. Even if everyone else in the world thought that it is good to initiate force against others, I would disagree
But much of the discussion here is instead focused on if laws are good or bad depending on the process which led to the law. Even if everyone else in the world thought that it is good to initiate force against others, I would disagree
And just because you disagree, the law will be magically striken down from the law books?
And fortunately, many basic criminal laws today describe how each and everyone of us has the right to his property and may not be threatened or assaulted.
But how did this happen? This happened because the majority of the populace agreed about these issues.
Look at the example I provided: spousal rape. Until early 90s it was legal in the UK. Until mid-70s, it was legal in the US. Why did it change? There was finally enough outcry to convince the judges and the lawmakers to change the law.
If the question "Is spousal right to sex a legal fiction?" were put up before an anarchist society of judges and their customers, do you think it would take that long? I don't mean "would their values be different?" The evidence is that the values of the population recognized a woman's right to her body and refusal to have sex with her husband long before the legal change happened. But the political system was very slow to change, as it is in every other aspect.
The point is that both legal system (whatever its implementation) and the markets respond to vox populi. But markets always respond to it more quickly than the government. Look at any example. Why should the law be any different?
FlyingAxe:So, imagine some other scenario. A man rapes his wife. His wife sues him. The man asserts that sexual intercourse with his wife was his right, granted to him by marrying her. The wife asserts that her right to her body is unalianable; in any event, it was not alienated by marrying her husband. On whose side will the law be?
Well, I sure hope that the law would be on the side of the wife, but there's no guarantee of that.
Helloween, do you think a monopoly court system would be committing aggression in forcefully shutting down competitors within its claimed jurisdiction? Why or why not?
Both the minarchists and the anarcho capitalists need to get rid of todays oppressive government. Minarchists want to salvage the parts of the existing justice system which does promote individual freedom (it nowadays often costs only about 1% of total government spendings). I'm not sure what anarcho capitalists want, but they seem to want to abolish even that part of todays governmet. And then let everyone "compete" with different laws. I don't understand why we should abolish the oppressive government, only to let people recreate new "competing" oppressive governments. We who value every humans right to freedom, should not tolerate any "competing" actions which infringe on those rights.
As I said, I don't care about weird fuzzy concepts like "legitimacy". I only care for valuing laws according to how well they protect every individual's negative rights.
Right. There is no guarantee either way.
Look, I think the images that come up in my head (and possibly those of some other people) when one says "anarchist law" or "mob rule" are that of the South and Black Codes/Jim Crow laws. But one has to keep in mind that those laws were legislated as a result of the local people's views. So, there is no difference here between public or private law-making/discovery in this case.
One could make an anti-federalist argument that this is why it's good for the Federal Government to step in when the local law is immoral, but that assumes that the most cases of the Federal Government "stepping in" (or, to abstract, the rule of the benign majority over the immoral local minority) will be beneficial in terms of the natural law. But I don't know if the reality supports this and not the opposite.
Autolykos: Helloween, do you think a monopoly court system would be committing aggression in forcefully shutting down competitors within its claimed jurisdiction?
Autolykos:
Helloween, do you think a monopoly court system would be committing aggression in forcefully shutting down competitors within its claimed jurisdiction?
It would be good to forcefully shut down a competing justice system which violates negative rights, and replace it with one which instead protects such rights. I would not call it "aggression", but an act of protecting peoples freedom. Just like it's good and right to forcefully shut down anyone who initiates force upon others.