Voluntary association does not seem credible.
On the personal level.
State law is just socialized justice, everyone pays for everyone's defense.
In a free society I am fed because of my productiveness and the charity of my neighbors. And in a free society I am defended against crime because of my productiveness and the charity of my neighbors.
You do not need the State to have law for the same reasons that you do not need the state to have production.
Peace
I'm talking about Bastiat's law, not redistribution of wealth. Isn't the role of government to protect life, liberty, and property?
solos: Isn't the role of government to protect life, liberty, and property?
Before Government can ensure that others do not infringe upon my natural rights, it must first ensure that it does not infringe upon mine itself.
Government, by definition, is an aggression against life, liberty, and property.
Government is not defined as the institution with a monoply on enforcement of laws. Government is the institution with a monoply to break the law, both its own and natural laws. The State is the institution that forbids gambling while at the same time operation lotteries.
If you want to protect your life, liberty, and property, abolish the state. The money you save on taxes can be spent towards your own personal security.
solos:I'm talking about Bastiat's law, not redistribution of wealth.
All taxation is a redistrubution of wealth. The production of security is an industry like any other. Taxing me to defend you is no different than taxing me to feed you.
There's only two valid types of law. There's criminal law and contract law.
Suppose someone breaks into your house and steals stuff. This is covered by "criminal law". You would call up a local police business and report the crime. There would be multiple competing police businesses, and you would call the one you think does the best job. The government should *NOT* have a monopoly of providing police protection.
If you think about it carefully, it works.
There's also contract law. In that case, a well-written contract would always specify which court had jurisdiction over disputes.
There's also invalid law. You might ask "How would you prevent people from smoking marijuana without a government?" The answer is that smoking marijuna is not a crime. If you smoke marijuana, you aren't injuring me. It's none of my business what you do in private, if you aren't injuring me.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
I'm not sure how. Randians often offer voluntary models for funding the government. I have no idea how Bastiat would intend to fund it.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
fsk:If you think about it carefully, it works.
I'm going to phone RoboCop Corp and tell them you're occupying my house and take your house... Seriously, I think you are misrepresenting the anarcho-capitalists view.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
He simplified it, but i don't know if he necessarily misrepresented it. If you called RoboCop Corp and told them I'm occupying your house, they're going to check into it to make sure it actually IS your house. Otherwise they'd risk losing credibility as a company. At least, that's how i assume it would happen. The beauty of the market is that it'll come up with the efficient solution if we give it the freedom to work its magic.
It seems to me that the question needing to be asked is WHY either of these 'functions' is necessary. Is enFORCEment (of what?) really needed (desired) AND why should taxes be imposed to 'pay' for that too? If you look at the core rational for 'government' then you can see that taxes are the mortar that hold the bricks (laws) together which make the 'fortress' that government would like to present itself as. Myself, its more a prison than an safe hold.
I say any 'service' that government proports to provide can and should be paid for by those who want and are willing to support it. Imposing 'services' upon those who don't want them isn't 'just' either. Would you pay a bill for insurance you don't want or receive? Why pay for 'protection' that you don't get?
Jain
If you lived completely free with no boundries how would you protect your self and property from some one or some nation that wishes to take it from you?
we must resist the borg
anonnymous: If you lived completely free with no boundries how would you protect your self and property from some one or some nation that wishes to take it from you?
A lot better than government does today.
Government's don't protect people or property. They destory people and property in order to protect themselves. Having a government that will draft you and send you to die as a "cost of war" is not in your best interest. Most people would prefer to lose their property than their life.
But if there was a cause actually worth fighting for there would be no need for a government to commandeer lives and property, they would be volunteered to the cause.
The only boundaries people need are those that we HONOR with other people (aka property rights). In reality, NOTHING prevents any one or group from invading and taking from others. Government is built on the illusion of protection. But it has been a LONG time since the villagers stood shoulder to shoulder to protect their food storage against invading hordes!! If you honestly think about it, what is the 'target' of taking, be it an individual's property or a huge area and its attributes? If an 'invading army' attacked a Wal*Mart, wouldn't it be obvious as theft and property damage? Why is it that when armies do the damages they do, that its 'forgiven' as necessary to 'protect'?!? And what do armies protect really? It certainly isn't the homes and businesses of the so-called citizens (check out any war movie to verify this). No, armies are there to protect the GOVERNMENT which is supposed to be protecting the citizens - phooey!!
Laws and government can and do not 'protect'! Laws serve as a 'warning' so that punishment (AFTER the fact of damages) is then considered OK. Which quickly turns into a FEE oriented law structure rather than one that some how encourages compliance.
Without mutual honoring of property by people for each other, all activity would soon be theft. Isn't such mutual recognization of ownership what protects you and I right now?
JonBostwick: anonnymous: If you lived completely free with no boundries how would you protect your self and property from some one or some nation that wishes to take it from you? A lot better than government does today. Government's don't protect people or property. They destory people and property in order to protect themselves. Having a government that will draft you and send you to die as a "cost of war" is not in your best interest. Most people would prefer to lose their property than their life. But if there was a cause actually worth fighting for there would be no need for a government to commandeer lives and property, they would be volunteered to the cause.
Yes, governments are destructive I will agree but even if you and I and a whole group of people decided that we would respect each others right to life and liberty how would we protect ourselves militarily from a foe who cares not what we have agreed upon and uses his missles and planes to destroy us? I understand that people would volunteer to fight but if you had no planes or missels I can assure you that defeat would come quickly.
Yes for the most part mutual respect does protect us but how would we in this modern age protect ourselves from modern weapons of war? I agree with the idea that laws do not protect us but in a free economy wouldn't law be fee based anyway?
anonnymous:even if you and I and a whole group of people decided that we would respect each others right to life and liberty how would we protect ourselves militarily from a foe who cares not what we have agreed upon and uses his missles and planes to destroy us? I understand that people would volunteer to fight but if you had no planes or missels I can assure you that defeat would come quickly.
Government is a form of organization, but it is not the only form. Government is involuntary organization, while the market is voluntary organization. The market is what we endorse.
Its prohibitive for every individual to own the tools of war, but if many people pool there resources they can afford them for a small price per person. In the market this would happen through joint stock companies or by patronizing a provider of defense services.
Instead of jumping from the definition of a State than to a Government, why don't we just call it a... market government- a set of rules that individuals who sign up follow for return of their protection of property, except compulsion to join would not be used for the " market defense agency" to gain resources; as a typical State would do.
I think that in an an-cap society, having a PDA would soon be extinct after it's establishment. Peaceful relations and cost would eliminate mass defense. The closest thing would be a gang of like minded individuals protecting each other.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
A large part of "military" defense in a free society would likely be an extension of the insurance industry. Without mandatory insurance and subsidies from the government, an insurer must charge low premiums in order to stay competitive. Having to pay out constantly would raise premiums, so it would be in their interest to prevent damage to property. Insurers would therefore employ of defense companies. These companies could easily be equipped with the best defense hardware available - which, absent the state's monopoly/monopsony relationship with defense hardware producers, would render it far more efficient and far less expensive.
But it is also likely that the defense industry would arise from neighborhood watches, militias, and the like. With all sorts of hardware being cheap and easily available, there might be tanks parked alongside firetrucks, and missle defense systems mounted beside radio towers. And keep in mind, too, that there are between 60-90 million armed Americans today. With no gun restrictions there would be a far greater concentration of armed residents.
A foreign power would have precious little motivation to attack such a place.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
what happens when the insurance industry defualts on its obligations? What happens when one defense firm becomes dominate in this free market and decides to take over thru the threat of force unless all surrender their weapons? Is it possible that some neighborhoods would try and dominate others. Realisticly, not all people will agree to live in a free mark government and therefore may thwart any efforts to establish said free market economy.
MacFall: A large part of "military" defense in a free society would likely be an extension of the insurance industry. Without mandatory insurance and subsidies from the government, an insurer must charge low premiums in order to stay competitive. Having to pay out constantly would raise premiums, so it would be in their interest to prevent damage to property. Insurers would therefore employ of defense companies. These companies could easily be equipped with the best defense hardware available - which, absent the state's monopoly/monopsony relationship with defense hardware producers, would render it far more efficient and far less expensive. But it is also likely that the defense industry would arise from neighborhood watches, militias, and the like. With all sorts of hardware being cheap and easily available, there might be tanks parked alongside firetrucks, and missle defense systems mounted beside radio towers. And keep in mind, too, that there are between 60-90 million armed Americans today. With no gun restrictions there would be a far greater concentration of armed residents. A foreign power would have precious little motivation to attack such a place.
anonnymous:what happens when the insurance industry defualts on its obligations? What happens when one defense firm becomes dominate in this free market and decides to take over thru the threat of force unless all surrender their weapons? Is it possible that some neighborhoods would try and dominate others. Realisticly, not all people will agree to live in a free mark government and therefore may thwart any efforts to establish said free market economy.[
The question you are asking is how to limit power, and prevent people from abusing power. The answer you seem to want to give is to give a lot of power to a monopolist who no one can challenge. My question is, how does this solve the problem? It's an answer, but what makes it a correct, or sensible, answer?
JAlanKatz: anonnymous:what happens when the insurance industry defualts on its obligations? What happens when one defense firm becomes dominate in this free market and decides to take over thru the threat of force unless all surrender their weapons? Is it possible that some neighborhoods would try and dominate others. Realisticly, not all people will agree to live in a free mark government and therefore may thwart any efforts to establish said free market economy.[ The question you are asking is how to limit power, and prevent people from abusing power. The answer you seem to want to give is to give a lot of power to a monopolist who no one can challenge. My question is, how does this solve the problem? It's an answer, but what makes it a correct, or sensible, answer?
You are correct about the question but the answer I am looking for is how to prevent power from becoming monopolistic without concentrating power to do it.
anonnymous:You are correct about the question but the answer I am looking for is how to prevent power from becoming monopolistic without concentrating power to do it.
Well, first, you'll never come up with something foolproof. Libertarianism need not be (and ought not be) utopia. So I can't suggest a plan that will do everything right and nothing wrong. In addition, consider that what we're really trying to do now is predict the path freedom will follow - always a fool's errand. That being said...
The answer to preventing monopoly is competition. When an insurance company defaults on its promises, this is an opportunity to enter the market. When one defense firm gets to a point where it will soon take over, the other companies have an interest in banding together to say "hey, cut it out now."
JAlanKatz: anonnymous:You are correct about the question but the answer I am looking for is how to prevent power from becoming monopolistic without concentrating power to do it. Well, first, you'll never come up with something foolproof. Libertarianism need not be (and ought not be) utopia. So I can't suggest a plan that will do everything right and nothing wrong. In addition, consider that what we're really trying to do now is predict the path freedom will follow - always a fool's errand. That being said... The answer to preventing monopoly is competition. When an insurance company defaults on its promises, this is an opportunity to enter the market. When one defense firm gets to a point where it will soon take over, the other companies have an interest in banding together to say "hey, cut it out now."
I agree that the answer to monopolization is competition but when the defense companies band together wouldn't that then be to much power in to few hands and wouldn't that present its own problems? Even in a free market wouldn't there need to be some regulation other than companies banding together? Please forgive me for all the questions for I am just now beginning to understand this concept of free markets.
When you say "What happens if a group of people get together and decide to enslave everyone else?", that's exactly the way things are now!
Once a true free market exists, it isn't profitable for a handful of people to enslave everyone else. If they started getting close, then everyone else would band together to resist.
Once people realize "Taxation is theft!", then there will be a *LOT* of resistance if someone starts getting close to forming a new government.
anonnymous:I agree that the answer to monopolization is competition but when the defense companies band together wouldn't that then be to much power in to few hands and wouldn't that present its own problems? Even in a free market wouldn't there need to be some regulation other than companies banding together? Please forgive me for all the questions for I am just now beginning to understand this concept of free markets.
I think, again as an imperfect prediction, that they would band together only long enough to deal with the crazy agency threatening to upset the world. Look what happens in other industries - there is a tendency towards cooperation that goes along with the tendency towards competition, but not towards cooperation to the point where companies just spontaneously merge or form cartels.
On that topic, a large difference is that if an industry does cartelize, including the defense industry, a strong incentive is thereby given to other firms to enter the industry, offering a more moral and cheaper service. The cartelization raises profits, which increases the incentive to enter the industry or provide a good substitute.
If an industry wants to get unfair profits, it needs to not just cartelize, but also threaten the use of force against anyone who tries to compete. This is how the mafia makes money; it's how government provision of defense works as well. If, despite all this, it were cartelized, we'd end up with what we have now. There might still be a difference in people's minds though - people accept the mafia, but do not think that arguing against the mafia is immoral.
For those wondering about totally private defense and law services, Robert Murphy does a great, consise job in Chaos Theory:
http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Try giving Dominick Armentano's articles on monopoly on Mises.org a read. They're very informative, and he deals with so-called monopolistic forms of competition quite deftly.
solos: I'm talking about Bastiat's law, not redistribution of wealth. Isn't the role of government to protect life, liberty, and property?
OK, even assuming this is correct (which I don't agree with), then HOW can an organization do such things unless it uses the resources that it claims to be available to it?!? I don't read in that statement any PRODUCTIVENESS which creates the things necessary to do that 'role'. And I'd love to hear HOW 'protection' is done! Nothing I've seen or heard of re government is anything except a 'warning' to 'not do' and the to punish AFTER the fact (of the wrong doing). Nothing sounds protective (preventive) about that.
You do it.
Monopoly is a social convention. If everyone agrees that there shouldn't be a monopoly, there won't be one.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
What about serial killers and thieves? Would a private police force jail them and give them a fair trial or just go out back and shoot them.
Why the PDA would ride over them with a tank and then get little kids to clean the blood off at below subsistence wages! Cheaper than bullets.
solos: Voluntary association does not seem credible.
Quite simple. Law and order exists when the majority wills it, even with government absent. Law and order does not exist when the majority does not will it, even when government demands it.
Although such a concept would appear at first glance bizzarre and even dangerous to the average American, it is easily substantiated with empirical observation.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Byzantine: And this is why the culture of the majority matters, much as anarchists like to pretend it doesn't.
And this is why the culture of the majority matters, much as anarchists like to pretend it doesn't.
Sure, the "culture of the majority" matters, but it is not necessarily "democracy". There's no problem with majority rule as long as there exists an opt-out from the majority decision. This exists in lots of private organizations today, and is not considered tyrannical or authoritarian by libertarians or anarchists.
For example, a majority of people disliking recreational cocaine use is not the same thing as having cocaine users fined, imprisoned, or executed. There could be several different responses, from uneasy toleration to outright and active shunning.
anonnymous:What happens when one defense firm becomes dominate in this free market and decides to take over thru the threat of force unless all surrender their weapons?
Sounds like you'd have a government, and be no worse off than you are today. The exception would be that the citizens who were previously free would offer constant resistance to this new ruler, while when you establish a government that accomplishes the same thing you instead get the support of the masses.
Stolz2525: anonnymous:What happens when one defense firm becomes dominate in this free market and decides to take over thru the threat of force unless all surrender their weapons? Sounds like you'd have a government, and be no worse off than you are today. The exception would be that the citizens who were previously free would offer constant resistance to this new ruler, while when you establish a government that accomplishes the same thing you instead get the support of the masses.
I would just as soon not have a government but the fact of the matter is I am forced to have one based on the decisions of people long dead. I would like each generation to have the freedom to decide how they will live. In order to over come the form of government that we now have we must be resolved to destroy it and if that can be achieved without violence great, but probably unlikely. Not to mention we will need something to replace it and a way to get people to understand it and support it.