Political Theory

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

JamesB — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:00:36 GMT

Tony Fernandez:
But if they own the land then who would kick them out? Obviously the people could leave, but that same argument is made to defend the statist measures that the US takes. So how is a land-owning police agency any different than a state in that regard (forget about the arguments about right to own the land as I don't think that this would make any practical difference in the way the land is "ruled").

Earlier I argued it would make more sense for the customers to own the land themselves (unless the agency also wants to get involved in providing infrastructure). However even if they don't there are a few relevant differences. The most crucial is they don't have a monopoly on legal force over that area just because the own it. Any theory of property saying they do is insane. Private property owners can make rules now but they are still held accountable to external institutions. I see no reason for this to change. Second is it would make a practical difference in how the land is "ruled" because if it's easy enough for people to go elsewhere (lower transaction costs) this places limits on what customers will put up with. Third, I don't think you can legitimately hold land out of use indefinitely so if the agency wants to keep it's land then it needs to be putting it towards some use which allows market forces to keep the consumer in charge.

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

cporter — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:49:18 GMT

Nobody would (or should) kick them out, it is their land. You rent their apartments just like you would anyone elses, they just happen to provide their own security instead of contracting it out. If they provide unreasonable terms of rental people just won't rent those apartments. Eventually they will go bankrupt and someone with perhaps more reasonable terms will buy the property, or individuals will buy the property for themselves instead of renting.

Your theoretical rental agency differs from the state primarily in that the state requires no contractual agreement in order for it to impose its rules on you.

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

Tony Fernandez — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:38:35 GMT

But if they own the land then who would kick them out? Obviously the people could leave, but that same argument is made to defend the statist measures that the US takes. So how is a land-owning police agency any different than a state in that regard (forget about the arguments about right to own the land as I don't think that this would make any practical difference in the way the land is "ruled").

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

mahall — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:54:12 GMT

Mr. Fernandez,

a police agency would have monopoly rights over that area

Remember there is always the threat of competition upon the agency, that is if they do not act in accordance with how the market demands, a new agency will replace them if they fail to adjust and act accordingly. Does is sound like monopoly rights to you?

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

Daniel Hewitt — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:10:49 GMT

Tony, I recommend that you read Democracy: The God That Failed after you are done. There is a chapter where Hoppe sketches out what he thinks a free market in personal protection would like. It does not have to be territorial; Somalia exemplifies that.

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

JamesB — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:59:38 GMT

Tony Fernandez:
To James B. As I understand it, a police agency would have monopoly rights over that area. If you go on that land, your agree to the laws of that area.
But maybe I'm confused about the whole concept itself still.

Not quite, the owners can legitimately make you leave (if they stick to proportional uses of force) but they can't just enforce whatever rules they want. If they behave aggressively towards you then you're still within your rights to defend yourself and demand restitution regardless of who's property you're on.

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

Tony Fernandez — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:39:47 GMT

To James B. As I understand it, a police agency would have monopoly rights over that area. If you go on that land, your agree to the laws of that area.

But maybe I'm confused about the whole concept itself still.

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

mouser98 — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:45:05 GMT

xarthaz:
Indeed. It is quite funny how anarchists often use these appeals to statism to justify their reasoning. That is the ingrainment of universal/natural law also making itself known with the would-be homeowners associations/protection agency alliances/whatever other organisation that are practically a monopoly on violence. Slightly embarrasing how the anarchists use such concepts as a teleological foundation of enforcement of the system of law they prefer, while trying to maintain the image of being pro-options and voluntarism. A mechanism not unlike democratic justification of statism.

really? i guess that means i can opt out, then. that is great to hear considering tax time is right around the corner.

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

Stranger — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:32:25 GMT

The production of roads is something entirely different from a monopoly on justice. States have always been producers of roads and even security, but they only obtained a monopoly on justice, hence became "the modern state", in the 16th-17th centuries.

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

JamesB — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:56:09 GMT

Tony Fernandez:
It seems to me that private protection agencies would buy land and lease it to people so as to internalize any externalities they create by their presence.This would probably be better than a group of property owners contracting with a police agency to patrol the street, then one closes down and someone else moves in and doesn't want to pay for the protection but they would still get some benefit.

Or the property owners could buy the street and only allow new owners to move onto it if they are a customer of a defence agency. That would make more sense because consumers, if price remains constant, will prefer to retain the option of choosing their defence agency rather than have someone impose it on them. Also, the property owners will have a bigger vested interest in maintaining the street (thus packaging the public good of infrastructure with the private good of a home or business) than the defence agency because so long as there is some exclusion mechanism the agency makes their money, it doesn't matter who does the excluding. The option facing the defence company is value of exclusion mechanism - cost of land vs value of exclusion mechanism. So everyone wins by this arrangement which means the market will probably provide it over any of the alternatives.Besides, even if they all patronised the same defence agency that wouldn't imply a quasi-state. A state has a geographical monopoly on the use of legal force which this agency wouldn't have because even if all the property owners were customers of the same agency that doesn't mean everyone who ever walked onto their property would be subject to the monopoly, they all get to stay with whichever agency they prefer, so it can hardly be called a state when the institutions resolving disputes remain polycentric. TBH, it sounds more like a condominium than a state to me.

Lastly, assuming it would be like a state, you could still argue that because the transaction costs of changing "state" would be lower than they are today it would still be easier to keep in check by simply voting with your feet. (Though I should stress this is a practical point, not a rights-based one. I don't think a mini-state would be legitimate but if the options are illegitimate and hard to monitor vs just illegitimate I think the choice is obvious.)

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

MaikU — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:18:43 GMT

And people like to justify their wish to control other people with such kind of language. Ignore arguments, just use funny one-liners and somehow the opponent is destroyed.

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

wolfman — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:43:58 GMT

Indeed. It is quite funny how anarchists often use these appeals to statism to justify their reasoning. That is the ingrainment of universal/natural law also making itself known with the would-be homeowners associations/protection agency alliances/whatever other organisation that are practically a monopoly on violence. Slightly embarrasing how the anarchists use such concepts as a teleological foundation of enforcement of the system of law they prefer, while trying to maintain the image of being pro-options and voluntarism. A mechanism not unlike democratic justification of statism.

Additionally this reasoning becomes a utopia on itself. "Communism and anarchy are two faces of the same worthless coin."

I think this is one of my best quotes ever. LOL

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

MaikU — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:28:27 GMT

it's funny how many people (especially minarchists) use arguments like this to defend their position (favoring small state/government). It should be exact opposite, because these arguments show flaws of statist system, not anarchic. It show, what is really true nature of a state - a criminal gang that enforces rules upon majority of people. Sure, why have anarchism, that can evolve into state? Better have a state right now, jesus, that's perfect, isn't it? Why have a healthy body that can get sick in a future? It is better to have a cancer now. At least, it is known evil, isn't it?

No offense to OP. It's ok to ask questions and have reasonable doubts. It means a person is sane.

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

Gero — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:25:42 GMT

Quick irrelevant question for Michael J Green: Why is your avatar Commodus (played by Joaquin Phoenix), the antagonist in the 2000 historical epic film Gladiator?

Re: New to anarchy: I have some questions.

Michael J Green — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:11:22 GMT

It seems to me that private protection agencies would buy land and lease it to people so as to internalize any externalities they create by their presence.

Could it not be more economical to specialize only in police-like services, and offer those services to landowners specializing in owning and maintaining buildings and private communities? Replace "private protection agencies" with "water providers" or "electrical companies," and you see how odd the scenario is.

I believe this is how most private security is provided today: malls, gated communities, businesses as well as local, state and federal government agencies contract out to companies specializing in the relevant skills.