Mankind being what it is, murderers, robbers, thieves, thugs, and con-artists will always exist, and life in society will be impossible if they are not deterred. How and by whom is this enforcement of law and order accomplished? The answer given by classical liberals and by almost everyone else is that the indispensable task of maintaining law and order is the unique function of the state. But the very institution of government is nothing less than a contradiction in terms: an expropriating property protector, “producing” ever more taxes and ever less protection. In order to be just and efficient, the production and maintenance of law will have to be undertaken by freely financed and competing individuals and agencies. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/5392/the-idea-of-a-private-law-society/
The Idea of a Private Law Society
Previous post: But who would work for such exploitably low wages?
{ 81 comments }
← Previous Comments
“i) the more you become specialized, the more a potential threat you become;”
To criminals, certainly. It’s not obvious that free market security companies are a threat to individuals.
What is obvious is that free market security is less of a threat than the State.
“I have to assert that unlike all other services, the expertise in defense can – and you can bet your farm will – be used for corrupt purposes once it becomes apparent that a number of such specialized services have the capacity to control practically all other transactions by providing the safety environment for them.”
So long as these are free-market firms we’re talking about, they still have to remain profitable by serving their customers. They don’t have the control you speak of if the customer can leave at any time. (This sovereignty of the individual is a key difference between the state’s behaviour and that of the market.)
“And I’m afraid just as the principle of self-interest will hold true in pushing those specialized in using violence to abusing it, this relation will also motive them to use it cunningly so as to create their own monopoly.”
As long as corporate growth services the customer by providing superior service at lower prices, it is welcome. A large corporation that tried to become a monopoly and ramped up its prices would rapidly lose market share to competitors and start-ups. In the unlikely event a defence corporation got too aggressive in its methods, its customers would feel insecure and switch to competitors.
“And you’d be wrong, because if you’re specializing in using force, there’s every incentive for mergers, cutting cartellization deals, consolidation since defense, due to its nature, becomes more profitable the more consolidated it becomes.”
Only so long as these changes benefit the customer, who is free to leave once they don’t. You could make most of these arguments for every single market, but reality shows these concerns to be baseless. The laundry detergent business also provides every incentive for mergers, cartels, and consolidation; and yet competition continues to thrive.
The fact is, war and aggression are expensive and bad for business. Wars are rarely (if ever) fought with the funds of private individuals; that’s why it’s a child of the coercive state, and not the free market. The security companies I’ve seen have no interest in starting wars with each other. Simply doing the jobs they’ve been hired to do — guard buildings, drive armoured cars, etc. — is more profitable.
Brett Celinki claims that “Tsarist and then Soviet Russia w..ere all societies where the majority was perpetually ignored by the government.” I dispute that. One example is when Lenin wanted to establish collective farms throughout the country, but was forced to abandon it because of the vast objections of the farmers.
Not only was there large support for the disgraceful practices of the USSR (where dissidents were ostracized by a willing public) but even today there is sizeable nostalgia for Stalin, and the desire for a strong Russia. The Russian public continues to accept destructive practices, since they are told it will harm the greedy rich. Also note that the KGB (GPU or NKVD) officials have never been prosecuted by the Russians, while their members (including Putin) continue to have great influence. Things were better under the Tsar If only because people had the ability to leave) and many loved Mother Russia.
Some people believe that a government that prosecutes many, lacks support. Yet in some countries, no matter who is in power, there will be many who are prosecuted. There, the most representative government could be hated by most. It is akin to a workplace, or senior community, where most are dissatisfied, yet that was their choice.
Brett says, and I agree, that “in a free society, political decisions made by the majority should only pertain to that majority, not to any other parties not interested in said decision. It is not legitimate if it is forced on all in the territory in which the political decision is made.”
Next, he notes that countries have not allowed private enterprise to have their own armies. That however, does not demonstrate that it is feasible to have a private enterprise army.
Now there are continual debates (which one can find via Google) about Iceland succeeding as an anarchist commune, that most of us are not qualified to judge. In my recollection, David Friedman is more modest and open in his claims, than are those who use his work to presume certainty. (As an aside, Iceland may have been under the governance of a single military power.) Yet, even if the vaunted example of Olde Iceland held water, it has not reemerged in the modern world. How would we show that Iceland should be the model for an advanced nation? Has that country left a heritage that we ought emulate? It is reminiscent of Orson Welles’ line in the “Third Man”, that after centuries, what Switzerland has produced, is the cuckoo clock. Perhaps Brett believes that our Founders, instead of using the most civilized nations as their guide, should have been inspired by our sparse, debatable, knowledge of Iceland?
Fred Mann says that “ALL services currently provided by government can be, or have been provided privately WITHOUT coercion or government “protection”.” Now the “can be” is claimed by theory. What about reality? Can one demonstrate that a free market army has existed, let alone won a war? Can one demonstrate that a free market judicial system has run a country? It is true that particular services can be better done by the market. That does not show however that government can be replaced, because those services have been provided, under existing governments.
Now Rothbard’s article “Pennsylvania’s Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690″ is substantive and documented. In contrast with the debatable statements about Olde Iceland, here is an illustration of something that in fact occurred, in near modern times. I presume that Rothbard is correct that “the new, but rather large, colony of Pennsylvania lived for the greater part of four years in a de facto condition of individual anarchism, and seemed none the worse for the experience.” One can argue that what was sustained for four years could have become permanent. On the other hand, one could conclude that it demonstrated, that even under the fortuitous conditions of the new world, there lacked the power to withstand the outside world. Thus, there can be anarchist communes, and perhaps there were in the old West, when people set up their towns. Whether they can survive remains at issue.
Now Fred writes in relation to privatized services “even if none of these things existed, there is still no argument that can be made why these services CAN’T be provided privately on the market. You have simply made assertions that this can not be so, but have provided no actual arguments. Instead of just saying, “the market cannot provide a comprehensive set of laws”, why don’t you say “the market cannot provide a comprehensive set of laws BECAUSE … (place your argument here)”.
The first argument I provided was a negative one, namely that we cannot conclude that because the market provides a service, given that it is protected by an existing government, that it could have done so without the prior existence of a government. A positive argument is that for the market to provide a service, it must be protected from theft. Here the force to do so must be comprehensive, for if one part of a country has its police force, and another part has another, there will be war between their parties. Moreover, there are outside nations who will steal what a given nation produces, so there must be the ability for a successful defense.
In short, for the market to provide (not a given or a few services, but) a complete set of services, there needs to be a potent army, and the guidance of a comprehensive set of laws. These I submit constitutes a government. Here, “the market cannot provide a comprehensive set of laws BECAUSE …” these require the adherence of a public that cannot agree on any such set. When some agree, they are few, and will in time disagree. Moreover, being few, they do not have the power to withstand the many. There is a balance that is needed between virtue and survivability. A few could be quite virtuous, but unless they are many, they lack the power to survive as a sovereign order.
Now I know that the anarchists define ‘government’ and ‘market’ in such a manner, that the words permit no need for government, and permit a fully operational market. I do not accept those definitions, not only because they are not lexical, but because they leave out the heart of the human condition, namely that man has aggressive tendencies which require the curtailing of his barbarism. These rely on traditions and concepts that necessarily employ some aggression. Were man able to be self-governing, we would not have had to have the aggression of government to begin with.
There are those who claim that the problem with government is its lack of representation. They speak of situations where some or most denizens resent their venal rulers. Allow me to suggest why this fails as an explanation for what is wrong.
Last year, my wife and I joined a senior community (requiring age 55+) in Monroe Township NJ. The members had voted for a Board, which called a meeting that we attended. Some of them complained about when the garbage was picked up, while others complained about the cutting of the grass, snow removal, displays on houses, or which mix of services would be provided, etc. For each complaint on one side, there were multiple counter desires. In my ornery fashion, in contrast to all who expressed their dissatisfaction, I thanked the Board for their fine unrewarded activities. There were a few applause, but virtually all of the audience was up in arms against their representatives. Somehow, someone had stolen their dream of a contented retirement.
Now there is a Turner-Rice bill, that will be passed in some form or other, for these communities. The complainants will have a NJ state bureaucracy that will handle all sorts of ‘problems’. Needless to say, the populace will complain as though they were libertarians or anarchists at what will ensue. The bureaucracy will be dictatorial, imposing, and very expensive (although those who push the bill claim otherwise). Conscientious residents will be unwilling to serve on a Board, for they will be subject to being sued. Moreover, senior communities can never become free of the bill. So once their residents realize that their property values will go down, as their fees and taxes rise, they will be unable to unload their property. Rather they shall find low-cost housing and methadone clinics in their communities.
So why don’t we blame the government, since things will turn out poorly, and the vast majority of denizens will view themselves as unrepresented?
Aggression: the initiation of or threat of physical force, theft or violence against a non-aggressor.
Allen,
“…man has aggressive tendencies which require the curtailing of his barbarism. These rely on traditions and concepts that necessarily employ some aggression.”
I don’t know if you see a small inconsistency here: the problem with humans is they have aggressive tendencies which require curtailing by humans employing… aggression. Are we really advocating aggression to curtail aggression? When it becomes clear that something is very wrong with this fundamental proposition, we recognize why the state itself is such a mess. It necessarily must be. It is justified through and founded in incoherence and contradiction.
Paul Edwards views my position as saying “the problem with humans is they have aggressive tendencies which require curtailing by humans employing… aggression.”
That truly sounds contradictory. Yet suppose we say that the problem with humans is that they are imperfect, so we shall reform them by methods that are themselves imperfect. That is surely how reform proceeds. Were we to insist that everything we do must be perfect, we could not get out of bed in the morning, and should not do anything at all.
Let us suppose one were to bring up a child by not permitting him to say or do anything that was imperfect. Such a requirement would be prohibitive. Even when one educates in science, he might trade off some veracity, for brevity and clarity. So I am not “advocating aggression” but recognizing the reality that to do our best will necessarily include some aggression. Similarly, the best mechanism devised by man will not be perfectly efficient.
So I do not agree that something is wrong with a proposition that recognizes the unavoidability of some imperfection. Nor does this realism explain why the state is in a mess. The state is in a mess primarily because it does not minimize aggression, not because it is unable to prevent it altogether. (Again, it is better to mate a good woman than to have none, for lack of perfection; if this is an advocacy of aggression, so be it.)
It is neither incoherent nor contradictory to recognize that the best of what we have or do, will be not as good as what will be discovered in the future. Should we have precluded the mathematics of Pythagoras and the science of Newton, because they contained imperfections, or employed them because they permitted more gain than if they weren’t there at all?
The state is in a mess primarily because it does not minimize aggression, not because it is unable to prevent it altogether.
No, the state is a mess because its very existence is predicated upon institutionalized aggression. If the state were to minimize aggression, it would minimize itself right out of existence.
So I am not “advocating aggression” but recognizing the reality that to do our best will necessarily include some aggression
ADVOCATE v.: To aid the cause of by approving or favoring: back, champion, endorse, get behind, plump for, recommend, side with, stand behind, stand by, support, uphold. Idioms: align oneself with, go to bat for, take the part of.
Allen, are you not arguing in favor of aggression? “Advocating aggression” must have a different meaning then plain ole’ advocating aggression.
To all advocates of aggression: If agression is really necessary to human progress then why on earth would one want to minimize it? If aggression is a *good* then shouldn’t we want as much of it as possible? Is it not inconsistent/arbitrary to argue for *just a little bit* of aggression?
No amount of aggression is required to combat human barbarism. To defend one’s self against aggression is NOT aggression. To maintain that aggression is necassary to combat barbarism, you are in effect actually arguing for MORE barbarism.
Brian Drum says that “the state is a mess because its very existence is predicated upon institutionalized aggression.” I don’t suppose that this is because our Declaration of Independence claims that there are inalienable rights, and that Government is instituted to secure these rights. Perhaps he will indicate where in our founding documents aggression is found?
Then Brian asks “If aggression is really necessary to human progress then why on earth would one want to minimize it?” Perhaps if he were in medicine, he would ask why we try to minimize the amount of germs in the human body, since we can never get rid of all of them, without killing the patient.
Paul Edwards put me to shame as one who advocates aggression. So I would like to become as pure as he, and denounce all aggression. As I understand his position, it is:
Our only principled choice is to preclude all aggression;
Therefore, we can only allow organizations that are strictly voluntary, and permit no coercion.
Yet Paul does not go far enough, since:
Even those organizations will include some individuals who engage in aggression and coercion;
Therefore, we cannot permit any such organization to exist.
(At the very least, we must exclude any individual who could ever act aggressively.)
After all, I refuse to be a party to anything that advocates aggression.
Allen,
I’m willing to concede that imperfect humans will implement justice imperfectly, if you are willing to concede (well, even if you’re not) that knowingly and unnecessarily advocating injustice is not a valid starting place from which to attempt to achieve the optimal practical, if not perfect system of justice.
If i demand a perfect theory of how to proceed to achieve justice, it does not follow that i demand humans to be perfect. It’s just the ideal on which to model our approach.
My position is this: i know we, being human and imperfect, won’t perfectly implement even a theoretically correct ideal system of justice, but we should at least use that ideal as the goal and should not advocate anything less. Why should we? There is no advantage in starting unnecessarily with a fundamentally flawed theory of law, and work our way in a further spiraling downwards actual practice from there. We should start with what is correct in theory, and do our best to execute. Whatever the results, it’s got to be better than attempting to execute injustice and expect to get just results by accident.
You said that “The state is in a mess primarily because it does not minimize aggression, not because it is unable to prevent it altogether.”
But i think the state fails to even minimize aggression and in fact, it rather further perpetuates it because its basis of existence is on legitimized aggression. It is not just because the humans implementing the state are flawed and sometimes fail to carry out their agenda. The humans implementing the state are a part of institutionalized aggression. They cannot fail to be aggressive, and cannot fail to embrace aggression, and they cannot fail to further expand aggression wherever they and their policies impact other non-aggressive humans, when the institution they labor under and for, is aggressive by definition.
For what it is worth Allen, I didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence, neither did I sign the Constitution. Does that mean the state and its rules don’t apply to me? No? Didn’t think so. Enforcing decrees by the threat of violence against an unwilling non-aggressing individual is an act of aggression.
How does the state gain revenue? Gifts? *BS* The state attains revenue via violent exproriation, pure and simple. You can wrap this up in as much obfuscating rhetoric that you want, but it still won’t change the fact that the state feeds itself with stolen property. Another act of agression…
You say that the Declaration of Independence is what the state is founded upon? Then surely you support secession, revolt, self-defense against state agents, etc right? If I have inalienable rights then what makes you think you should have the power to over rule them?
Allen,
“Paul Edwards put me to shame as one who advocates aggression. So I would like to become as pure as he, and denounce all aggression.”
LOL! Allen, that’s pretty harsh. I’m not trying to make you feel bad, dude. I think we both frown on aggression; we just differ on the prospects of containing it if we give aggression a pass for specific people for specific reasons, and are only against it for other people in other situations.
“As I understand his position, it is:
Our only principled choice is to preclude all aggression;
Therefore, we can only allow organizations that are strictly voluntary, and permit no coercion [actually aggression].”
Not bad.
“Yet Paul does not go far enough, since:”
I’ll go farther if I have to, but…
“Even those organizations will include some individuals who engage in aggression and coercion;”
Is it aggression or coercion? As Kinsella clued us in, the two are not identical by definition. Aggression is the INITIATION of violence or coercion: always bad. Coercion CAN be the legitimate response to aggression, and in this way it is good. My voluntary police and court system in anarchy would not be justified to commit the former, but would be justified to perform the latter. The state arrogates to itself the monopoly on performing both. Very bad.
“Therefore, we cannot permit any such organization to exist.
(At the very least, we must exclude any individual who could ever act aggressively.)”
Absolutely correct. All private individuals and institutions that committed aggression would be subject to the very same laws, and retributive and restitutional force and coercion as imposed by free courts; unlike at present, where private individuals are subject to one law, and the state is subject to another.
“After all, I refuse to be a party to anything that advocates aggression.”
I’m with you!
Paul Edwards says, and I agree, that demanding a perfect theory does not demand that humans be perfect. However, I do not accept what Paul considers a perfect theory or ideal. It is not perfect to only seek morality, when there is the imperative for both survival and morality (since absent survival, there can be no morality). Our disagreement is about what constitutes the proper theory. Paul views it as being perfectly moral, while I view it as a combination of survival and morality. Now Paul claims that my theory is mistaken, whereas I view his theory as mistaken. We simply harbor different ideals. It is true that I compromise morality for survival, but that is in line with what I aver is the correct theory.
Now, if Paul proves that the ideal that ‘the state should minimize aggression’ is theoretically inferior to the ideal to ‘entirely eliminate aggression’, then my theory will be wrong in principle, and not because of the imperfection of people who put it into practice. Yet I deny that the idea that some-aggression-is-unavoidable is any more causal to poor government, than the idea that some-germs-in-the-human-body-is-unavoidable is causal to poor medicine.
Brian Drum informs me that he didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence, so I checked, and sure enough he is right. So he doesn’t believe it applies to him, and therefore there is aggression when he is forced to comply. I agree with him, and find this, and his taxation to be an act of aggression. I have claimed, and maintain, that a certain amount of such aggression is unavoidable, both when forming and when continuing a government.
He asks whether I support secession, revolt, and self-defense against state agents. I do under certain conditions, and for example, believe that the South had the right to secede, due to the tariffs placed upon her. However, I also believe that certain aggression is necessary, so that for example aggrieved individuals do not have the right to throw bombs at the governing bodies. I claim they only have that right when the government goes well beyond its proper functions.
Brian finds my view unacceptable, because it permits certain aggression. Yet I maintain that unless there is some survivability for the government, we will have far greater aggression. His final question is where the state gets the right to deny his inalienable rights. My answer is from necessity, for without some cohesion, the state could not exist.
Paul Edwards asks whether I claim that individuals will engage in aggression or coercion, as coercion can be justified. I meant it in the pejorative sense, where it is unjustified. Paul however, would merely punish the individuals who engage in aggression and unjustified coercion. My point was more radical, namely that I would prohibit the formation of any organization that did not guarantee that such behavior could not occur. So I was asking Paul to not merely reject representative government, but all anarchist organizations as well.
“Yet I deny that the idea that some-aggression-is-unavoidable is any more causal to poor government, than the idea that some-germs-in-the-human-body-is-unavoidable is causal to poor medicine.”
Solving the problem of social order by the creation of state (with is antisocial by its very nature) is ridiculous. All this does is centralize and legitamize aggression. Do you kill off an infection by injecting a mass of the vary organisms you are trying to rid yourself of?
“I agree with him, and find this [being forced to obey state decrees], and his taxation to be an act of aggression. “
but…
“I have claimed, and maintain, that a certain amount of such aggression is unavoidable, both when forming and when continuing a government.”
Of course aggression in unavoidable when forming and maintaining a state. Aggression is what a state IS!
“…whether I support secession, revolt, and self-defense against state agents. I do under certain conditions…”
Under what conditions will you let me secede from your state, Allen? It would also be nice if there is more of a reason than “because I say so”.
“Yet I maintain that unless there is some survivability for the government, we will have far greater aggression”
Why? Who will you rape and pillage first?
“His final question is where the state gets the right to deny his inalienable rights. My answer is from necessity, for without some cohesion, the state could not exist.”
You are missing the whole point, that being that the state shouldn’t exist in the first place. It is a moral cancer. The state promotes and incentives aggression. Saying that your need to continue aggression justifies the continuation and intensification of such aggression is ridiculous.
“My point was more radical, namely that I would prohibit the formation of any organization that did not guarantee that such behavior could not occur.”
Well at least then you have outlawed your beloved state. I don’t even see the point of your ‘radical point’. What are you trying to say? Of course a stateless society cannot guarantee zero aggression. I thought we were all in agreement that there will always be some aggressive individuals?
In anarchy individuals are free to make their own arragements in regards to their security needs. Under a state all are forced to get their ‘protection’ from the most powerful and the only ‘legitimate’ aggressor.
Being scared of the boogeymen on the other side of the hills is a rather poor excuse for enslaving your neighbor.
Brian Drum claims that the state causes aggression, and that you do not kill an infection by adding the organisms you wish to be rid of. In this manner, he completely disregarded the consideration as to whether a doctor should require removing all of the germs in the patient’s body. As such, even if his position is correct, it is not at all responsive to the argument presented.
He asks under what conditions I would let him secede from the state. I have written that the state should have the power to count him as a citizen, and to tax him against his will. However, should the state take away his religious freedom, or deny him the right to leave, it has abandoned its proper function, and requires no allegiance.
Brian claims that my only argument is “because I say so” (or ipse dixit). So let me repeat that a state is necessary to curtail barbarism, and to do so it must exist, which in turn requires some degree of aggression. Now he will disagree, but that does not show that I have not given any reasons. I claim, as did our Founders, that history has provided the guides needed for curtailing aggression. Again, Brian can disagree with the reasoning of our Founders, and decry the Federalist Papers. However, if he claims that no reasons have been given, I do not know what he means by a reason.
Next (in response to my saying that if government does not survive, we shall have far greater aggression) he responds “Why? Who will you rape and pillage first?” The answer was shown in “Gone With The Wind” where as soon as the law was unenforceable, such actions occurred. We may note that similar actions occurred in New Orleans, and during certain blackouts.
Finally, since we agree that there will always be some aggressive individuals, Brian doesn’t follow the argument against allowing anarchist organizations. The point however was to show that the requirement that there be no aggression whatsoever is unrealistic and contradictory.
As a separate issue, some on this blog have addressed the state solely from the perspective of morality, rather than including the imperative for survivability. It reminds me of a designer who saw everything in terms of esthetics, while disregarding functionality. She put up a beautiful mirror, but it was so placed that one could barely see himself in it; she put up an esthetic light fixture, but it interfered with people’s view of one another at the table; she placed an elegant chair in the corner of the living room, which made it a squeeze to enter or leave the apartment. I could go on, because the person actually exists. If you mention the lack of functionality, she will explain that you have no esthetic sense. I have also encountered mathematicians who have been so enamored by rigor, that it interfered with the practicality of their solutions.
I think that some anarchists are so enamored by morality, that they cannot fathom the imperative for survivability, save to insist that their schemes are survivable.
RE: Limited government
World tiniest government cannot exist without rights violation. xD xD
http://www.townhall.com/News/newsarticle.aspx?ContentGuid=b974562f-eda5-4253-aca3-632515ca28bc
Anarchy will NEVER come about because of some abstract theory, any more than any society has ever been.
The question we should be asking now isn’t whether the government ought to be abolished, but what should we do to promote liberty given the current societal context. Anarchy isn’t the first step, but the last.
Will anarchy result from a consistent libertarian ethic applied in jurisprudence? WHO CARES?! We should be aiming for REAL justice and equity before the law, not some abstract construct. As Zane has pointed out, justice requires an adequate tribunal. This doesn’t mean public or private. It means something REAL which somebody has to CREATE (and not just in the mind). Perhaps after a hundred years of a libertarian-esque monarchy or whatever we will ddemand anarchy as a practical solution to this fundamental problem, but not now.
I’ll add that this article does have value in challenging the idea that the state alone ought to create such a tribunal, but it doesn’t really advance any anarchist cause IMHO.
HOW to establish such a tribunal would.
Anarkhos, “We should be aiming for REAL justice and equity before the law, not some abstract construct.”
You contradict yourself. If you never aim for the ideal, you can never reach it. You cannot advance the principle of an-archy if you never aim for an-archy.
Like “privatization”, if it’s still a legal monopoly, run by friends of the people in power, it’s not really private.
Equal before the law is a nice theory, but equal before a bad law still sucks.
Anarchy isn’t a principle I’m aiming for however, any more than any other structure of society. The principle I’m aiming for is justice (natural rights) and equity. Anarchy may be the ultimate result of such pursuits, and indeed I believe it will be, but it isn’t something concrete like a firm or a contract or a tribunal. Indeed, anarchy without a system of justice is hardly something to strive for.
If I consider the abolition of the FTC I don’t make the anarchist argument (FTC isn’t anarchy, therefore it’s bad, or FTC is supported by taxes etc.), I make the argument about who’s interests are served by the existence of the FTC in real terms then make an appeal to justice and equity. Given the context of what society is today, we can be resonably assured of the positive benefits of the FTC’s abolition. The same cannot be said of the whole kit’n'caboodle. The choice has to come down to something more CONCRETE like giving the civil courts the first crack at any case, then whittling away at the criminal code based on justice and equity. At some point the public criminal code may no longer exist.
That isn’t aiming for anarchy, it’s aiming for true principles like justice and equity.
I agree with Anarkhos, that our aim is ‘justice’ where my definition is “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” Hence, the ideal is that people get what they deserve. The question then becomes how to move toward that ideal.
I submit that ‘morality’ is the means for obtaining justice. Here there are traditional guides and standards, including natural law, equity, due process, etc. Justice, morality, and their particulars, can surely be debated, for as aspirations, they remain a work in progress.
Up to this point, I believe that my view is consistent with that of the anarchists. My point of departure is that *morality cannot be an absolute, but must be tempered by the imperative of survival.* Whether we construct a pencil or a map, its function cannot be the sole concern, but also its structure for survivability. As any engineer knows, it is one thing to employ a measure of effectiveness (MOE), and another to ensure feasibility. A clear illustration of this is when analysts employ the mechanism of Linear (or Non-linear, or Dynamic) Programming. There the MOE is given by the Objective function, provided there is first the ensuring of feasibility. Such a dichotomy exists in all areas where something has to get done.
That is why the physician aims at reducing the amount of germs in the body, for that is feasible, with an imperfect MOE. Conversely, while eliminating all germs would result in a perfect MOE, it is infeasible.
How does it work?
My mother-in-law was robbed and injured by two men. How would a private law society act? The state caught and sent them to prison for many years.
My wife had a cousin who was murdered. Would a private law society be able to execute the kiler?
In the future a gang in Mexico wants to expand into the area formerly occupied by the United States of America, an area that consists of a disunited agglomeration of neighbor associations and insurance companies.
The old state system didn’t/hasn’t done a great job with the above. How would the non state (anarchy) do? Worse, the same or better?
The question we should be asking now isn’t whether the government ought to be abolished, but what should we do to promote liberty given the current societal context. Anarchy isn’t the first step, but the last.
I agree that to seek anarchy as an immediate step is a waste of time on practical grounds. The change from statism to liberty will require a tremendous change in public opinion. Secessionist movements may be the best way to approach full liberty, since they are inherently a vote against centralized political power. I would take a world made up of thousands of tiny states over a few mega-states (or one state) any day!
My mother-in-law was robbed and injured by two men. How would a private law society act? The state caught and sent them to prison for many years.
And how did that help your mother in law? Under anarchy, the two men preferably wouldn’t be imprisoned at all; they’d be required to make restitution to your mother in law, including returning the items they stole – the injured party (your mother in law) would be the beneficiary, rather than being victimized yet again (being taxed to feed and house the robbers, etc., rather than getting her stuff back)
Allen, I don’t disagree that morality as a personal guide is the beginning. After all, if we didn’t have character flaws the state wouldn’t exist now. However, in the public sphere, a more general ethical doctrine can bind society in a way which doesn’t require a state. The customary rules which define how we deal with one another don’t require agreement on all moral issues of personal conduct nor do they require a moral leader for those who can think of themselves (others may seek such leadership, but this doesn’t necessarily translate into state worship).
A libertarian ethic, for example, is compatible with greed as much as with compassion.
My main problem with an anarcho-capitalist legal system of punishment is about those crimes which, although being a result of a person’s action, are not intended to cause harm, and still are the result of negligence or imprudence. For instance, in a private road (which, I presume, could have traffic rules and users subject to administrative restrictions and sanctions), if I go to the opposite side of the road, let’s say, to deviate from an animal or for being tired of driving, of for passing another car, therefore crashing my car into someone else’s, and killing the other person, should I be subject to the death penalty (if this is the wish of the dead person or his heritage)?
Italo,
“My main problem with an anarcho-capitalist legal system of punishment is about those crimes which, although being a result of a person’s action, are not intended to cause harm, and still are the result of negligence or imprudence.”
This is really more a question of law in general and how intent comes into play. What you are suggesting is that the free market in law would not arrive at as good a solution to this problem as a monopoly in law. I am not sure why you presume this. There has been a lot of analysis done in law theory in the past and continues today. Austrian Law is pretty good, but I think there are legal principles that line up already with Austrian/Libertarian principles that would apply and would be adopted in the free market. Your intuition suggests that the death penalty for accidentally killing someone while swerving to miss an animal may well turn out to be harsh and unjust. A free market that has an inclination towards justice which applies Austrian Law will likely be with you on this. At least there is no reason to presume otherwise.
I belive in the institution of private law. I’ve read Ethics of Liberty and etc. and I couldn’t agree more with M.N. Rothbard.
I just find it hard to analyse how this question would be resolved in the Free Society.
That is what I am trying to grasp here. What would be the proporcional punishment for this sort of action funded on negligence or imprudence?
Italo,
I think I follow you. I should point you to this article by Hoppe, “PROPERTY, CAUSALITY, AND LIABILITY”
at http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_6.pdf , where Hoppe compares and contrasts Murray Rothbard’s idea of liability with that of Adolf Reinach’s. I think it is an excellent and interesting article with ideas such as the following:
“For Rothbard, it appears guilt or fault is established by proof of causation of harm. Reinach, on the other hand, emphasizes that causation and fault are independent elements, and both must be present in order to impose liability.
Thus, he writes:
“In the case of a man’s death, it is not sufficient that the death resulted from the action of an accountable (sane) person; as an additional requirement of a punishable offense, intent and deliberation (premeditation) or intent without deliberation (negligence) or, as we can summarily say, fault must be present as well. Causation of success and fault are requirements of punishment.— Fault must always be found.
“However, faultless causation, which remains free of punishment, exists also.”
I thank you, Mr. Paul Edwards, for the article. I’ve read it partially and it seems interesting.
The Rothbard model is incredible, his libertarian society is a possible model, but it is not fully developed.
More discussion about proper punishment and its developments in the free society is required, as well as more discussion about the fundamental base of such society (natural rights ethics, Hoppe’s praxeological ethics and etc.)
Back to the case of my mugged Mother-In-Law, the perp pays back to my MIL what was taken, now does the perp pay her for the confrontation, the injuries, and her reluctance to go out in public again?
If I were home when the MIL was being mugged and came out and shot them, would I be required to render them medical assistance and could I charge them for shotting them and an insurance fee.
Do I as the property owner get to choose the set of laws that govern their disposition if they survive my shooting them?
Are all punishments limited to cash, shunning, and/or shaming?
My right to shot them seems to violate the c, s, s rule.
The state didn’t make her whole, will anarchy?
Kent,
“Back to the case of my mugged Mother-In-Law, the perp pays back to my MIL what was taken,”
This is already a better deal than that offered by the state.
“now does the perp pay her for the confrontation, the injuries, and her reluctance to go out in public again?”
Yes. The private courts will arrive at what will at least be an attempt at just compensation for these considerations. The better the court is at this, the more business it will attract from paying consumers of private court and insurance services.
“If I were home when the MIL was being mugged and came out and shot them, would I be required to render them medical assistance and could I charge them for shotting them and an insurance fee.”
I don’t see why you would be required to render medical assistance. Their act of aggression makes them responsible for their own medical aid. On the other hand, I’m not sure I follow your second question: you want to charge them a sort of service fee for putting a bullet in them?
“Do I as the property owner get to choose the set of laws that govern their disposition if they survive my shooting them?”
The courts will hear your charges and decide on compensation. There will probably be a judgment in your favor for emotional trauma involved in defending against a home invasion.
“Are all punishments limited to cash, shunning, and/or shaming?”
Retribution, compensation and restitution are based on proportionality of damages imposed by the criminal. The just punishment for murder is death and financial damages due to lost earnings. For rape: monetary compensation for emotional and physical damages as well as perhaps physical retribution.
“My right to shot them seems to violate the c, s, s rule.”
What rule is that?
“The state didn’t make her whole, will anarchy?”
Anarchy will lessen the frequency of such crimes and will increase the justice imposed when these crimes are committed. However, anarchy applies to people who aren’t perfect; therefore you cannot ask for a perfect world even in anarchy.
Here’s what I see when I read these types of essays: “It’s hard to predict how an anarchist legal system would work, but suffice it to say that [the laws I prefer] would be enforced by private agencies. [Laws that I find distasteful] would not be enforced. The private courts would impose [punishments that I find appropriate] on criminals.”
At best, anarchy _might_ result in efficient laws, but these are unlikely to coincide with this dream of free-for-all libertinism, purely restitutional justice and personal ownership of nuclear weapons (or whatever your own flavor of libertarianism looks like). Almost nobody really wants that.
I see no reason to believe that ancap could ever be stable anyway. The history of the world shows that central states are the stable stopping point. Don’t forget the efficiency gained by being able to go through your life dealing almost exclusively with people who are subject to the same laws as you. Under ancap, your dealings with every person might entail different rules of behavior and different punishments if they are violated. The desire to cluster up into groups of like minded people (subscribing to the same laws) is only natural.
How many times in the last section did Hoppe use the term “have” with respect to insurers? There is no enforcer above these insurance companies, so in what sense do they “have” to do anything? Their only possible incentive might be to stay in business, but the fact is that they could default on any supposed contract since nobody will enforce it (besides them). Under what supposed set of laws would the contract be written anyway?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.