[lucky]

So let people decide their own preferences.

Everybody already decides their own preferences. I think that what you're really venting about is that you don't always have the means to implement your own preferences.

[Eran]

What you describe sounds a lot like a state -- a judiciary that is able to enforce property rights sounds like a kritarchy.

Any system that enables enforcement of laws would sound a little like a state.

The critical difference is any state (regardless of how it rules or how its rulers are determined) claims a monopoly over its use of its powers.

In a Kritarchy, for example, the judges would assert jurisdiction over certain disputes.

In the system I am describing, judges only have authority by virtue of being consulted through the mutual agreement of both sides to a dispute. If a judge loses the confidence of members of society, he loses all power and authority.

IF a better judge comes along, one who is more appealing to the public, he will tend to get consulted.


This system might look like that of ancient Israel, but before it was consolidated into a single state in anything like the modern sense.

All of the feasible solutions involve some kind of third party that can enforce contracts, i.e. a state. Complex societies are impossible under anarchy precisely because people's rights are much easier to violate when there is not a state apparatus to defend against abuses.

You are partially correct. Yes, a third party is required to enforce contract. But there need not be a single third party that forces its "services" on the rest of society (which is part of the definition of a state).

Rather, you can have dispute resolution offered as a service in the market (more precisely, as a voluntary service, whether provided for or not-for profit basis).

Consider the international trade. Clearly, the system of international trade cannot function without a mechanism for dispute resolution. However, the Earth isn't ruled by a single government. Instead, parties to international trade choose the legal system under which contracts will be enforced. They use sophisticated mechanisms of reputation, third-party guarantees and collateral to ensure enforcement.

Everybody already decides their own preferences. I think that what you're really venting about is that you don't always have the means to implement your own preferences.

No lucky. Everybody today decides their own preferences and imposes them on those who don't agree.

It is the latter part that Rothbardian argues against.

It is entirely conceivable that the vast majority of Americans, for example, do decide to voluntarily live under the rules of the Federal Government. Further, it is even possible that they will refuse to trade with anybody who hasn't chosen similarly to be subject to those rules.

If that was the case, anarchists living in the US would find it very difficult to cope, and most are likely to "opt-in" and choose to be subject to the very same rules.

Under that scenario, you would have a good point.

But this is not the way things work now, is it? People aren't given the choice to opt-out. Federal agents will break down your door and threaten to kill you if you refuse to obey their orders. This is the world we live in.

[lucky]

No lucky. Everybody today decides their own preferences and imposes them on those who don't agree.

The first part is precisely what I said (and is the opposite of what Rothbardian implied) and I agree with the second part.

People aren't given the choice to opt-out. Federal agents will break down your door and threaten to kill you if you refuse to obey their orders.

Of course they aren't given it. That's exactly what I said: you and Rothbardian don't have the means to implement your own preferences, if those include opting out of laws and successfully fighting off federal agents. I didn't say you were "given" anything, on the contrary, I explicitly said you didn't have the means to do what you dream of doing.

[Eran]

OK - maybe I misunderstood you.

A common criticism of us tiny minority anarchists is that even under the free market, not everybody gets what they want. I might want a green iPad, but one isn't available, and so I cannot have it.

By analogy, some people argue, I might want to live in an anarchy, but, just as with the market, tiny minorities cannot expect to get things their way.

As for "means to implement your own preferences", I now understand that you include the means to resist the superior force of government agents (who enjoy, after all, the tacit backing of the majority of the population). With that understanding we are indeed in agreement.

[Rothbardian]

Everybody already decides their own preferences. I think that what you're really venting about is that you don't always have the means to implement your own preferences.

Power has nothing to do with. If you threaten to harm another person in any context other than self defense you are imposing your preferences upon them. You don't truly believe rape is voluntary, so if you're going to make an argument please choose one that you actually believe yourself. Thanks Lucky.

[Rich]

I believe the initial distribution of property rights is less and less relevant to today's world.

So you're saying that the 90th percentile at birth which will presumably tend to be concentrated in places like Bangladesh and Africa will have similar outcomes to the tenth percentile that tend to live in westernised countries.

I'm pretty sure the figures for America show a fall in social mobility in recent decades.

[Eran]

So you're saying that the 90th percentile at birth which will presumably tend to be concentrated in places like Bangladesh and Africa will have similar outcomes to the tenth percentile that tend to live in westernised countries.

This isn't due to the initial distribution of property rights, but the ongoing difference in economic freedom.

Countries which liberalised their markets (even partially) are quickly catching up to the west.

I'm pretty sure the figures for America show a fall in social mobility in recent decades.

Perhaps. But that doesn't prove anything.

Imagine a society in which people's wealth was a function of their inherited non-monetary endowments (genetic, but mainly cultural). In such a society you would have low levels of income mobility despite irrelevance of initial distribution of property rights.

I don't know to what extent current American society is similar to that imaginary society, but the point is that low income mobility isn't necessarily indicative of correlation between property holdings and future earnings.