Political Theory

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

Stranger — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:44:50 GMT

VanDoodah:

"The idea of anarchy=murder is just state-induced indoctrination at its best."

Somalia?

The prisoners of the Somali pirates are the best treated of any prisoners of any state. As far as I can tell they have not inflicted a single death so far.

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

E. R. Olovetto — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:47:46 GMT

VanDoodah:

Governments are ELECTED. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. If you have a problem with democracy, then please feel free to go into more detail.

Being elected doesn't mean that a politician actually represents someone. A better word for democracy is majoritarianism.

Some good stuff on this is Casey's The Indefensibility of Representation and the Hōppe fettschrift from Ch. 4/pg 235 of the PDF.

VanDoodah:
Nothing. You are free to do so even in our current, rather illiberal society. However, not everyone can afford private security, so what you are proposing is actually security for the rich and the law of the jungle for everybody else.

We can have private security to some extent (limited arms), but certainly not many aspects of private justice. States hold a monopoly on violence and justice. Purely arbitrary civil legislation creates uncertainty, as compared to more traditional forms of common law.

The Bill Gates/Hobbesian jungle fallacy is the overwhelmingly most common objection people have when faced with the subject of private security. These people would be trying to operate in the same manner as states, so the approach is the same.

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

VanDoodah — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:14:05 GMT

"...how does this group justify themselves having power? Do they have special rights?"

Governments are ELECTED. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. If you have a problem with democracy, then please feel free to go into more detail.

"Secondly, what's wrong with hiring your own security?"

Nothing. You are free to do so even in our current, rather illiberal society. However, not everyone can afford private security, so what you are proposing is actually security for the rich and the law of the jungle for everybody else.

"The only thing that keeps you from murdering your neighbour is the threat of violence from the government?"

No, but prison is certainly a major deterrent for me.

"The idea of anarchy=murder is just state-induced indoctrination at its best."

Somalia?

""I'm perfectly trustworthy, but look out for that guy over there.""

Yeah, there are no criminals in our society. They're a statist myth, right?

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

cpx — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:19:07 GMT

Personally, what kicked me over the edge was Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I would recommend you listen to his lecture series Economy, Society & History available here at mises. It's quite a lot of material, 15 hours spread over 10 lectures, but it's a magnificent treatise on the history of humanity. What defines us as humans, why property rights are natural rights, and why a coercive government is not needed in order to protect those rights. As I understand the argument, because they are completely natural to us, a monopoly on the arbitration of justice is not necessary in order to have a civil society.

But I think the most devastating argument he makes against the state comes in regard to common law. A common complaint about a society based on natural order (Hoppe's term for anarchy - has a nice ring to it doesn't it?) is that it would be impossible to achieve a system of laws that apply equally to everyone in society. But as justice would in effect be provided through insurance agencies, the market would eventually, as in all other cases on the market, homogenize, so to speak. That is, different insurance agencies would harmonize their contracts because it will simplify arbitration and thus make it more cost-effective for the agency. So even in a system completely devoid of any written law, the market is perfectly capable of providing arbitration of justice.

I could go on and on about this, because I think his work is so incredibly fascinating and revolutionary, and there's so much of it! :) There is much more to it than this, for instance how the time preference of justice arbitrators is affected based on whether they exist in a natural order society, a monarchy or a democracy. I think this is where he truly excels because he brings in the most fundamental concept of Austrian economic theory, time preference, and uses it to explain why it is more desirable to have a free market-based justice system than a monopolized one.

Sorry if I got lengthy, it's just a subject that excites me a lot :)

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

Andrew Cain — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:01:16 GMT

You know I don't think we have ever got into a discussion about punishment specifically something like Block's 'reparations plus' theory or I *think* Roderick Long's 'Just reparations' [ I remember him saying in passing that equilibrating justice means returning the individual to the state he was before the crime took place ]

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

AJ — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:55:14 GMT

Yeah, I think you got the idea.

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

Alex the Amused — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:27:17 GMT

AJ:

Given where your friend is, I'd say this article would push him over the edge to anarchy. It also, importantly, explains why the better we can detail a justice system in anarchy, the more we argue for minarchy or central planning. So it's a situation where it's precisely because there are so many thorny questions to deal with that minarchy cannot work.

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/gtwebsite/MythWeb.htm

I've only read about a 1/3rd of it so far, but I must say it is quite satisfactory. However, when he speaks of objective ruling he's referring specifically to ruling based on natural rights, which would be much harder to manipulate, in theory at least. Although I suppose in the declaration of independance we outlined natural rights that we said were being violated. Those were ignored almost immediately.

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

AJ — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:18:23 GMT

Given where your friend is, I'd say this article would push him over the edge to anarchy. It also, importantly, explains why the better we can detail a justice system in anarchy, the more we argue for minarchy or central planning. So it's a situation where it's precisely because there are so many thorny questions to deal with that minarchy cannot work.

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/gtwebsite/MythWeb.htm

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

Alex the Amused — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:32:40 GMT

FRIEND:

I must admit, I have been bouncing back and forth between minarchy and anarchy for some time, you very nearly have me convinced. Give me an example of how justice would be carried out in anarchy, step by step. Let's say a man robs a bank, what happens to him besides having the money returned to the bank by the bank's security once he has been tracked down?

2 hours ago · Delete

Alex House

That depends, quite frankly, on the security force. One of the glories of anarchy is that you pick your security force, who you make contracts with, what nature your agreements will be of. This could play out in many different ways frankly.

The most expedient and clean route would be if that robber had a contract with the security force, or some other entity that if they robbed a bank, the money would be taken from them in addition to X reparations. I am unsure on what the morality of imprisoning a person would be.

There is indeed still a chance for injustice in any system. But in anarchy there is no giant centralized organization stealing from you or forcing you to follow its own idea of morality. You choose who you do business with, what you accept as tender, how to interact with others, and you control every aspect of your property. An interesting option lies in this actually. If a group got together, and decided that they would prefer a government of sorts, they could build a compound, give all the land to one leader, and that man, as leader, would be able to justifiably enact any law he wishes.

Anarchy, in short, is a clean slate. It allows every man to live to his maximum potential, to the farthest extent his nature allows him. He is the master of his own destiny.

I'l ask some blokes on the mises thread what they think of concerning the situation. The morality concerning punishment is still up in debate.

Mkay, thoughts on the issue at hand?

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

Sieben — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:38:24 GMT

eliotn:
but that is a non-sequitor.

Maybe to rephrase: The state doesn't have any incentive to conform to a set of objective standards, like Justice or whatever.

eliotn:
Private law may try to be more or less objective than state law when it is implemented, it all depends on how people want their law interpreted

Objectivity is possible in both systems, but I think the private sector has a better chance at it.

eliotn:
Also, there needs to be a distinction between subjectivity between different law systems and within the same system.

Yes. Personally I don't take objective law too seriously. Any law is fine with me so long as its voluntarily agreed upon. Maybe this is my one objective law.

eliotn:
People may not know the letters of every rule, but many have a general knowledge of the law. Also, how much of the law you cite is actually enforced? Can people get by when they ignore most of it? This statement is an exaggeration of the truth.

Well for day to day people, there is not very much uncertainty. You go into corporate law, tax law, patent law, then you start getting chaos. The mere fact that companies have to hire teams of lawyers reveals that common men are unable to follow these complex laws on their own.

This is insane! If I have a company, and everyone is trying their best to follow the law, we still probably do something illegal.

Oh well... thanks for your response. I get kind of annoyed too when people advocating what I believe in do it carelessly. Perhaps my rhetoric was too strong.

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

eliotn — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:56:59 GMT

Snowflake:
I would say that there is less objectivity under state law than private law because the state has zero incentive to do anything for the general good.

sorry, but that is a non-sequitor. Private law may try to be more or less objective than state law when it is implemented, it all depends on how people want their law interpreted. Also, there needs to be a distinction between subjectivity between different law systems and within the same system.

Snowflake:
In a society where nobody knows what the rules are, there is chaos, and this is what we have right now.

People may not know the letters of every rule, but many have a general knowledge of the law. Also, how much of the law you cite is actually enforced? Can people get by when they ignore most of it? This statement is an exaggeration of the truth.

I just wanted to clarify some errors that I noticed.

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

Alex the Amused — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:31:55 GMT

Ah, just beautiful Snowflake. A truly delicious amount of information. Excellent work! Sincerely, thank you.

Now, to figure out how to best modify my arguments...

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

Knight_of_BAAWA — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:41:46 GMT

Alex the Amused:
Apparently, there is a down side to making a good argument. Theres less to talk about.

The upside is the person will either STFU and quit bothering you about it because the person has no retorts, or will come to agree with you. I'm seeing nothing but win in either case.

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

Sieben — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:33:39 GMT

Wow you know most people who ask for help on this forum don't know what they're talking about. Can I just say that so far you are doing quite a good job on him. Some things to point out:

Where you are losing:

He said there needs to be an objective law of the land. You don't really address this argument. There are two ways to go about addressing it: If people agree to the laws binding them, then they are legitimate even if they are not the same everywhere. For example I cannot swear on a christian forum and will be banned immediately. But I can swear on other forums, so there is no objective law. Is this a problem? No; because I have agreed to their rules by posting on their forums.

Alternatively you can say that a state is no guarantee of objectivity... just look at all the competing interpretations of law in America. I would say that there is less objectivity under state law than private law because the state has zero incentive to do anything for the general good. There are more laws written than any team of lawyers could ever read. The tax code is something like 125lbs. In a society where nobody knows what the rules are, there is chaos, and this is what we have right now.

The historic cases of private law like the law merchant yielded homogeneous and voluntary law. You can look it up somewhere on mises.

So objective law is possible under a state, but it isn't likely. It is also possible under anarchy that everyone will reach the same conclusions about law. But even if there were an objective standard for law, you would want people competing to interpret it better and better. Even very simple laws like the NAP are difficult to apply in weird circumstances.

Where you are winning:

Government will grow: Hammer this. Explain why it causes him to lose the argument. You just kind of say it but don't get any offense out of it. This is why he is ignoring it.

Private Firms will not do battle: Good defense. Now for offense. States are more likely to engage in conflict because they externalize their costs onto the citizenry. Nuff said.

Where you can go:

Ask him to point out specific historical examples of failed private law. If he can actually find one, research it to make sure there isn't something wierd about the region. Like Somalia is not what anarchy is supposed to look like for a good reason.

Ask him how he thinks he can check government, and even if you could, why would you want to risk it when failure is so catastrophic? Would he ever make a contract with someone else where they got to be judge in their own case?

Alex the Amused:
A rather interesting situation. B accidentally may or may not of stolen the car. Well, if either company can't get sufficient evidence, its in their interest to drop the claim, especially if it would end up in full war

Good response. But he's setting up a lose-lose scenario for you where no matter if the dispute is resolved for A or for B, there is a chance for injustice. Point out that grey area is a problem for any legal system, state or anarchical, and that you don't think government has very much incentive to even try to resolve these complex issues.

Re: Anarchy v Minarchy

Alex the Amused — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:10:40 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Alex the Amused:
I'm having a debate with a friend of mine. I'm on the anarchy side. Does anybody have any comments on either of our points? Perhaps something one of us overlooked, a fallacy, some sort of jump in reasoning?
Other than his emotional appeals and blatant assertions which you've countered quite nicely: no.

Apparently, there is a down side to making a good argument. Theres less to talk about.