[truth_seeker]

There are several historic examples of societies without government which lasted for decades or centuries, and were not characterised by "mob rule and vigilante justice". Those include medieval Ireland and Iceland and the American West. To a large degree, it also includes current-day international community (in the absence of a World Government).

But even if no such examples existed, that wouldn't tell us anything. There is a first time for everything.

Hmmm, the American West is one example I had in mind when critiquing anarchist philosophy on this point (i.e. rounding up the posse and lynching men without a trial is hardly what I would view as progress). Moreover, the other examples you cite aren't examples of anarchism, because there was still hierarchy. Chiefdom's, warlords, and the like, are a state equivalent (because power e.g. the power to enforce laws or customs, is vested in either individuals or some form of council).

Conventional anarchism doesn't admit the possibility of something like a non-profit law enforcement agency. An important theme in anarchism is that self-defense is a natural right, which cannot be delegated to a third party. If there's variations on this theme that would allow for this, yes, I'd say it's perfectly feasible, but I'd also say you wind up with a state equivalent.

So we have a non-profit law enforcement agency, I assume we'd want to protect the wrongfully accused, maybe (hopefully) a presumption of innocence, then perhaps we'd think the accused deserve a competent defense (implying an advocate, or something like a lawyer), then protections against racial prejudice (rules, like maybe a Bill of Rights), and ultimately a tribunal to conduct trials (again, providing protections for the wrongfully accused).

Would this non-profit police agency have enforcement power? If they do, how do we avoid some element of coercion? Should we worry about coercion in the context of arresting a violent criminal, if not, how is this distinct from the state?

I would make a sharp distinction between participatory democracy (which I would absolutely support) and anarchism. Yes, they are similar, and perhaps (through participatory democracy, both political and economic) we can avoid the inherent problems in the modern state -- while at the same time avoiding the eventuality of mob rule and vigilante justice; but from a pure philosophical perspective, this is not anarchism, it's a variation of social contract theory.

In other words, the only way to avoid the Hobbesian result is to say that self-defense cannot be delegated to a third party. As soon as you admit this probably isn't feasible, Hobbes is validated (even if you think he exaggerated the problem, his core philosophy remains in tact). I guess the only way a modern anarchist theorist can squirm their way out of this, is to say that somehow social contract theory was really a covert way of defending property rights (not upholding law and order). It is true, even in a socialist system (where there's no private property rights per se), you still wind up with power players, people who have exclusive/preferential access, and who wind up becoming very similar to an aristocracy.

All the thinkers I've read ... Proudhon, Kropotkin, Malatesta, et al, would all basically agree on the non-delegability of self-defense. They would say the state exists to protect property rights, when again states have existed where the modern conception of private property didn't exist. I would say, what you seem to be advocating for is something closer to communism (a sort of Marxism minus the transitory step of state socialism). But to quote Pierre Proudhon:

A common danger tends to concord. Communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak. In Communism, inequality comes from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Thus, I would say, without the principle that self-defense is non-delegable, it's no longer anarchism. The problem with anarchism wasn't so much of a problem in the 19th century (when many of these thinkers were alive). Kropotkin, a brilliant theorist in my opinion (for his day), was a biologist (a zoologist to be exact), but he lived in the dawn of the modern scientific era, where we didn't have the information we have today. For instance, we now know that dominion, sexual and non-sexual violence, tribalism, etc., exists throughout nature. Among chimps, rape is common, similarly, in animal species where there's no "concealed ovulation" ... rape is commonplace. Modern researchers have discovered that in animals where there is concealed ovulation, there's strong competition right down to the level of male sperm, whereas in cases where concealed ovulation is not a factor (as in humans) we don't find this attribute (sort of validating Dawkins' work, "The Selfish Gene" ... albeit you really have to rigorously work your way through the logic to reach this conclusion). Unless one takes a mystical (quasi-religious) view of human nature, then I'm not sure how they avoid the concession that the assumptions of these early theorists were flawed.

[Eran]

Hmmm, the American West is one example I had in mind when critiquing anarchist philosophy on this point (i.e. rounding up the posse and lynching men without a trial is hardly what I would view as progress).

Ah, you are confusing the historic American West with its depiction in the movies.

Here is a paper you might find interesting.

Moreover, the other examples you cite aren't examples of anarchism, because there was still hierarchy. Chiefdom's, warlords, and the like, are a state equivalent (because power e.g. the power to enforce laws or customs, is vested in either individuals or some form of council).

Not quite. True - those societies had chieftains, but those didn't have territorial monopoly over the legitimized use of force. The relation with those was much more voluntary in nature. They were more akin to the defence agencies many market anarchist envision. They didn't tax nor force their mediation on parties merely because of where the offence took place. They were approached and asked to resolve differences.

I am not suggesting those societies were pure market anarchies - obviously they weren't. But they were closer to the idea of market anarchy than to that of traditional governments.

An important theme in anarchism is that self-defense is a natural right, which cannot be delegated to a third party.

In that case, the kind of anarchism advocated by us, self-identifying ancaps (or market anarchists) isn't "conventional".

If there's variations on this theme that would allow for this, yes, I'd say it's perfectly feasible, but I'd also say you wind up with a state equivalent.

Why?

So we have a non-profit law enforcement agency, I assume we'd want to protect the wrongfully accused, maybe (hopefully) a presumption of innocence, then perhaps we'd think the accused deserve a competent defense (implying an advocate, or something like a lawyer), then protections against racial prejudice (rules, like maybe a Bill of Rights), and ultimately a tribunal to conduct trials (again, providing protections for the wrongfully accused).

Most of those are not necessary. In most cases, arbitration between accuser and accused will be conducted by an agency agreeable to both sides (or their representatives). An agency known for racial bias, for example, will quickly lose business.

Moreover, unlike state courts, arbitration agency in an anarchy enjoy no legal privilege. Neither do enforcement agencies tasked with executing arbitration judgements. A wrongful arrest doesn't lead to a mild disciplinary action (if at all) as in today's system, but to a conviction of kidnapping. This difference alone will go a great way towards reducing abuse.

Would this non-profit police agency have enforcement power? If they do, how do we avoid some element of coercion? Should we worry about coercion in the context of arresting a violent criminal, if not, how is this distinct from the state?

A private "police agency" (whether for-profit or non-profit) will be paid to execute judgements issued by credible arbitration courts. The presumption within society is that when an arbitration court issues an authorisation to use force, that force is defensive in nature (i.e. aiming at restoring just property rights) and not aggressive or coercive. This is precisely what characterises an arbitration court as "credible".

This presumption is, of course, subject to challenge. A person who feels aggrieved by the action following such judgement can sue the enforcement agency (naturally in a different court) and, if found right, will be awarded damages against the enforcement agency.

Because such damages can be significant, enforcement agencies are likely to purchase insurance to cover such liability. Moreover, employees of such agencies would be personally liable for their actions. They would insist on insurance cover independent of the financial means of the firm that employs them. A liability insurance company would, in turn, insist that only orders issued by credible arbitration courts (perhaps drawn from a limited list recognised by such insurance company) are enforced.

In rare cases in which the criminal refuses to cooperate, a court may well issue an order regardless. Such orders are naturally riskier (from the perspective of the enforcement agency), and enforcement agencies will naturally require a higher level of credibility (and probably cost) from such courts.

I would make a sharp distinction between participatory democracy (which I would absolutely support) and anarchism.

Participatory democracy, even if it were feasible (very doubtful) in a modern-scope society, while resolving some agency problems present in representative democracy (not to mention non-democratic states) doesn't address the fundamental problem with all governments. Where does government obtain the right to force its decisions on the minority? Even if government becomes identical with the majority of citizens, one can still ask from where does that majority derive its authority to force its views on the minority?

In a market anarchy, that issue is resolved. Each individual is considered as having equal authority to all others. That authority is embodied in the principle that none can legitimately use force (perhaps with the exception of emergency circumstances) against others or their peaceful projects. All the institutions of a market anarchy, from the conceptual one of property rights to their realisation through arbitration courts, enforcement agencies and the like derive their legitimacy from that fundamental principle (often referred to as the Non Aggression Principle or NAP).

In other words, the only way to avoid the Hobbesian result is to say that self-defense cannot be delegated to a third party. As soon as you admit this probably isn't feasible, Hobbes is validated (even if you think he exaggerated the problem, his core philosophy remains in tact).

You would have to explain why. Why is there a problem with a world in which self-defence can (and typically is) delegated, but where ONLY self-defence rights are delegated, in contrast with government which invariably claims privileges that go far beyond the self defence of its subjects.

For example, no aggregation of self-defence rights can justify taxation. No aggregation of self-defence rights can justify the exclusion of a competing organisation engaged in the provision of right protection.

All the thinkers I've read ... Proudhon, Kropotkin, Malatesta, et al, would all basically agree on the non-delegability of self-defense.

You should definitely read Rothbard.

[SolarCross]

I don't see any problem delegating self-defence for any kind of anarchist. Anarchists only have a problem with the state mandating that it should monopolise the delegation of self-defence.

[Rich]

Ah, you are confusing the historic American West with its depiction in the movies.

Violence levels in the West relative to population seem to have been very high compared to modern Britain. but I'd be interested if anyone has some definitive figures.
Here is a paper you might find interesting.

The specific rules included organization of jury trials; regulation of Sabbath-breaking, gambling and intoxication; and penalties for failing to perform chores, especially guard duty.

So these people created tyrannical micro states. Doesn't seem like they had any problem initiating force. People don't need government. If they haven't got government they can create a new one or ones in short order.

[Eran]

Violence levels in the West relative to population seem to have been very high compared to modern Britain.

That's not a fair comparison. How did they compare with contemporaneous Britain or Eastern US?

So these people created tyrannical micro states. Doesn't seem like they had any problem initiating force.

Micro-states are fundamentally less tyrannical than macro-states because of the relative ease of moving and therefore the competitive pressures to create good government.

Having said that, I don't think anybody is claiming that the West was an ideal market anarchy. Clearly it wasn't. It did, however, demonstrate a society in which law and order are maintained without an effective central government.

[SecretSquirrel]

Plus you could buy all the opium you wanted from the corner store!

[SolarCross]

Plus you could buy all the opium you wanted from the corner store!

Which raises the potential problem that drug traffickers from every corner of the globe will come in to set up production. Every other state in the world will declare our anarchy to be a failed narco state and proceed to carpet bomb us into prehistoric times.

[SecretSquirrel]

Drug traffickers would not do business with an anarchist society.

Most drugs cost nearly nothing in terms of production costs and shipping. The entire source of cost for narcotics stems from their illegality and therefore incredible artificial scarcity. Heroin, for instance, can cost an addict currently like 20,000-100,000 dollars a year depending on their usage level and market conditions. But morphine, which is the medical analogue used by hospitals, is literally cheaper than bottled drinking water for an addict's daily dosage (and would be even cheaper if so much opium wasnt diverted to the vastly more profitable illegal heroin trade).

In the absence of state prohibition the price of all drugs growable in-state (like marijuana, meth, ecstasy, heroin/morphine) would plummet to the level of basic food crops. We would not need anyone to import or traffic them.

Meanwhile, drugs that must be imported (like cocaine) would see a drastic reduction in imports from international traffickers. Nobody would be willing to play thousands of times more for cocaine than for heroin/morphine or meth or something. And international traffickers would not be willing to reduce the price of imported cocaine to competitive levels in that situation.

[SolarCross]

SS - I know that. An anarchy would be no market for drugs but it would be a safe haven to produce drugs for exporting to where it is illegal. Hence why we would be denounced as a narco state and probably bombed.

[truth_seeker]

Ah, you are confusing the historic American West with its depiction in the movies.

Here is a paper you might find interesting.

Vigilante justice in the west during the 1860's is well documented, it's not just the exaggerated (dramatized for popular consumption) stuff that appeared in dime novels.

Not quite. True - those societies had chieftains, but those didn't have territorial monopoly over the legitimized use of force. The relation with those was much more voluntary in nature. They were more akin to the defence agencies many market anarchist envision. They didn't tax nor force their mediation on parties merely because of where the offence took place. They were approached and asked to resolve differences.

Yes, for instance, ancient Celtic society -- had kingship's (based on dynastic progression), used practices such as tanistry for passing title to land, had fairly well developed marriage laws (albeit pretty typical for the period i.e. patriarchal), and there was indeed less reliance on coercive "state-like" law enforcement mechanisms (for example, fasting to shame someone into repaying debts is thought to have been a common practice). However, as in the Brehon laws, there were jurists, judges, etc. Capital punishment existed. This was not anarchism, this was merely a somewhat less sophisticated version of a micro-state (not uncommon for small ancient or prehistoric tribes).

I am not suggesting those societies were pure market anarchies - obviously they weren't. But they were closer to the idea of market anarchy than to that of traditional governments.

Funny thing about anarchism, it really is an all or nothing proposition. If coercion exists, it cannot be defined as anarchism, and thus cannot serve as an example of what a completely non-coercive society will look like. Moreover, I don't find small tribes as a valid example of anything. More conventional social anarchists, like David Graeber, also uses these examples (e.g. Iroquois confederations, tiny indigenous tribes, impoverished and tiny African agrarian societies, etc.).

From the perspective of the westerner ... why would they want to emulate failed or defeated societies? I mean, it's been said, demilitarization is a great idea, but the "other guy" first

Most of those are not necessary. In most cases, arbitration between accuser and accused will be conducted by an agency agreeable to both sides (or their representatives). An agency known for racial bias, for example, will quickly lose business.

If the majority of people were racists, there's absolutely no reason to believe this racist police agency would lose business (racist firms would be filling a popular niche). Indeed, without a very egalitarian society that worked hard at minimizing bigotry, it's hard to see how we don't wind up divided along racial, religious, and ethnic lines.

Moreover, unlike state courts, arbitration agency in an anarchy enjoy no legal privilege. Neither do enforcement agencies tasked with executing arbitration judgements. A wrongful arrest doesn't lead to a mild disciplinary action (if at all) as in today's system, but to a conviction of kidnapping. This difference alone will go a great way towards reducing abuse.

We actually do have private mediation firms now (not all arbitration/mediation is court mandated). However, when it comes to enforcement of a mediation agreement, particularly where it doesn't concern a commercial transaction (where at least if one party refuses to honor a mediation agreement, by caveat of credit reporting agencies, it would become public information, and they lose their credit standing) -- as in private disputes like say a divorce, child custody proceeding, nuisance action, property dispute, etc., without some form of coercion, where's the incentive to comply with mediated agreements?

A private "police agency" (whether for-profit or non-profit) will be paid to execute judgements issued by credible arbitration courts. The presumption within society is that when an arbitration court issues an authorisation to use force, that force is defensive in nature (i.e. aiming at restoring just property rights) and not aggressive or coercive. This is precisely what characterises an arbitration court as "credible".

So in other words, you define coercion as it suits your philosophy. Convenient!

This presumption is, of course, subject to challenge. A person who feels aggrieved by the action following such judgement can sue the enforcement agency (naturally in a different court) and, if found right, will be awarded damages against the enforcement agency.

Because such damages can be significant, enforcement agencies are likely to purchase insurance to cover such liability. Moreover, employees of such agencies would be personally liable for their actions. They would insist on insurance cover independent of the financial means of the firm that employs them. A liability insurance company would, in turn, insist that only orders issued by credible arbitration courts (perhaps drawn from a limited list recognised by such insurance company) are enforced.

In rare cases in which the criminal refuses to cooperate, a court may well issue an order regardless. Such orders are naturally riskier (from the perspective of the enforcement agency), and enforcement agencies will naturally require a higher level of credibility (and probably cost) from such courts.

Criminals refusing to cooperate isn't a rare case, it's why we call them criminals in the first place.

Participatory democracy, even if it were feasible (very doubtful) in a modern-scope society, while resolving some agency problems present in representative democracy (not to mention non-democratic states) doesn't address the fundamental problem with all governments. Where does government obtain the right to force its decisions on the minority? Even if government becomes identical with the majority of citizens, one can still ask from where does that majority derive its authority to force its views on the minority?

Which is why I don't oppose the idea of a state ... we have this thing called the Bill of Rights, designed to address the precise problem you're identifying.

In a market anarchy, that issue is resolved. Each individual is considered as having equal authority to all others. That authority is embodied in the principle that none can legitimately use force (perhaps with the exception of emergency circumstances) against others or their peaceful projects. All the institutions of a market anarchy, from the conceptual one of property rights to their realisation through arbitration courts, enforcement agencies and the like derive their legitimacy from that fundamental principle (often referred to as the Non Aggression Principle or NAP).

The shared dream of all anarchists, if everyone were just perfect, we wouldn't need laws or states or coercion. I'll agree with the dream, but I simply understand it for what it is ... a dream.

For example, no aggregation of self-defence rights can justify taxation. No aggregation of self-defence rights can justify the exclusion of a competing organisation engaged in the provision of right protection.

You should definitely read Rothbard.

I've read Rothbard, and Austrian economists like Hayek. The problem is, unregulated capitalism tends toward monopoly, cartels, or oligarchy. Indeed, I sort of agree with Hayek's economic calculation argument, but I also acknowledge monopolies can distort the price mechanism, and thus destroy a free market, and while economic calculation eventually becomes impossible, it won't matter, because there's no free market (and thus the monopolist can simply raise prices to offset inefficiency). In other words, you wind up with privatized socialism.

In a fully privatized society, the monopolist not only gains control of his market, but he can also purchase police power. So you wind up relying on benevolence (good luck with that one), and ultimately, the social default becomes the mob (and eventually people regain their senses, and create a new state).

[truth_seeker]

Drug traffickers would not do business with an anarchist society.

Most drugs cost nearly nothing in terms of production costs and shipping. The entire source of cost for narcotics stems from their illegality and therefore incredible artificial scarcity. Heroin, for instance, can cost an addict currently like 20,000-100,000 dollars a year depending on their usage level and market conditions. But morphine, which is the medical analogue used by hospitals, is literally cheaper than bottled drinking water for an addict's daily dosage (and would be even cheaper if so much opium wasnt diverted to the vastly more profitable illegal heroin trade).

In the absence of state prohibition the price of all drugs growable in-state (like marijuana, meth, ecstasy, heroin/morphine) would plummet to the level of basic food crops. We would not need anyone to import or traffic them.

Meanwhile, drugs that must be imported (like cocaine) would see a drastic reduction in imports from international traffickers. Nobody would be willing to play thousands of times more for cocaine than for heroin/morphine or meth or something. And international traffickers would not be willing to reduce the price of imported cocaine to competitive levels in that situation.

This one I can almost agree with. Drug laws (like all prohibition laws) are doomed to failure. How many times do we have to relearn the same lesson.

But some laws are good ... like say, Glass Steagall

[truth_seeker]

Micro-states are fundamentally less tyrannical than macro-states because of the relative ease of moving and therefore the competitive pressures to create good government.

Try telling that to prehistoric or very ancient peoples? This is true today (sort of, although I don't find this reasoning to be completely explanatory). I think small states are simply easier to govern, there tends to be more cultural cohesion, generally speaking they tend to be fairly homogeneous, and the strong similarity between its citizens, induces higher levels of nationalism and civic participation (case in point, Switzerland).

[Eran]

Which raises the potential problem that drug traffickers from every corner of the globe will come in to set up production. Every other state in the world will declare our anarchy to be a failed narco state and proceed to carpet bomb us into prehistoric times.

For a small anarchy to continue to exist, conditions must be ripe not just in terms of its own populace, but also in terms of the international community.

Unless a large country converts all at once, a small anarchy (like a small government-controlled country) would find it difficult to defend itself. Drug trafficking could be one excuse, but finding excusing would be very easy. Allegations of money laundering or being a tax haven, harbouring fugitives, allowing child pornography, gambling and prostitution, and on and on. The number of victimless offences that would be tolerated in an anarchy but frowned upon by other nations is virtually endless.

And then they'll lie...

Funny thing about anarchism, it really is an all or nothing proposition. If coercion exists, it cannot be defined as anarchism, and thus cannot serve as an example of what a completely non-coercive society will look like.

We are evidently not working off the same definition of anarchism. You seem to identify it with a non-coercive society. I merely define anarchy as a society not governed by a central government.

Medieval anarchies shouldn't be expected to bear closer resemblance to an ideal non-coercive society than Athenian Democracy does to modern social-democracy.

From the perspective of the westerner ... why would they want to emulate failed or defeated societies?

You'd want to emulate their positive features, even as you emulate different features of other societies, or create new ones to fit modern circumstances and sensibilities.

Lack of perfect historic examples has never stopped either failed or successful social reformers. There was a first time for everything - democracy, non-slaved-based society, equal opportunities to women, the rule of law, etc.

In each case, before the first example emerged, critics could argue with equal logic that lack of historic examples doomed the project. Since many such projects did work out, the logic that lack of historic examples is definitive is obviously faulty.

If the majority of people were racists, there's absolutely no reason to believe this racist police agency would lose business (racist firms would be filling a popular niche).

If the majority of people were racist, any society, regardless of form of government would be racist. Do I need to cite examples of racist democracies?

A non-coercive society relies for its ongoing stability on the majority sharing certain values, chief amongst them the primacy of property rights as legitimising the use of force. If that value is not broadly shared, society will quickly descend into government.

However, when it comes to enforcement of a mediation agreement, particularly where it doesn't concern a commercial transaction (where at least if one party refuses to honor a mediation agreement, by caveat of credit reporting agencies, it would become public information, and they lose their credit standing) -- as in private disputes like say a divorce, child custody proceeding, nuisance action, property dispute, etc., without some form of coercion, where's the incentive to comply with mediated agreements?

Unlike SecretSquirrel, I do believe it is legitimate to use force to restore or defend property rights. Arbitration decisions would effectively provide a credible opinion that certain actions using force are legitimate before they are effectively restoring or defending property rights.

An enforcement agency would thus be legitimised in using force to enforce such judgements. If compliance is not provided voluntarily, it will be forced.

So in other words, you define coercion as it suits your philosophy. Convenient!

I don't really like the word coercion. It has blurry meanings. It can be used to designate both legitimate and illegitimate activities. By philosophy is based on the Non Aggression Principle. Any action which violates the NAP is illegitimate and criminal. Any action consistent with NAP is legitimate and cannot be resisted using force.

Thus if force is used to recover stolen property, you can call it coercion if you like, but I believe that action to be legitimate, and have no issue with a society in which it is accepted.

Criminals refusing to cooperate isn't a rare case, it's why we call them criminals in the first place.

In Finland, people sentenced to jail are sent home because jails are overfull. Later they receive a notice in the mail asking them to come and serve their sentence. They almost invariably do come. So people judged so criminal as to warrant imprisonment are peacefully cooperating with institutions they believe to be legitimate. It isn't unusual.

In addition, a market anarchy would have much stronger tools with which to defend itself against criminals. For one thing, with all "public" spaces being privately owned, responsible and responsive landlords are likely to institute a policy of excluding known criminals from their territory. A criminal may well find himself effectively shunned by society. That threat may easily make the difference towards cooperation.

Finally, my system doesn't break down with non-cooperating criminals. Use of force against them may well be authorised and justified. The extra precautions required would make the process a bit costlier, but then the cost is charged to the criminal.

Which is why I don't oppose the idea of a state ... we have this thing called the Bill of Rights, designed to address the precise problem you're identifying.

The Bill of Rights, even if it were actually followed (remember the 9th and 10th amendments?), would do nothing of the sort. While slightly limiting the powers of the Federal government, it does nothing to limit the power of state governments. Further, the Constitution authorises many violations of natural rights, all without any moral justification.

The shared dream of all anarchists, if everyone were just perfect, we wouldn't need laws or states or coercion. I'll agree with the dream, but I simply understand it for what it is ... a dream.

Any idea which relies on "everyone being perfect" would indeed be a utopian dream. However, the society I envision doesn't rely on any such thing. In (stable) society, the majority shares ideas regarding the origins of legitimate use of force, whether based on the Divine Right of Kings or on the Constitution. A market anarchy would simply replace that broad, general idea with a different one, namely property rights (themselves a manifestation of NAP).

Criminals would still exist, as would disease and even body odour. I am not describing a utopia, but merely a society more just than our own.

The problem is, unregulated capitalism tends toward monopoly, cartels, or oligarchy.

This is an urban myth. Both theoretically and historically, unregulated capitalism has consistently benefited consumers. There have been examples of companies growing to dominate certain markets, but invariably they arrived and maintain their status by providing superior products to consumers. If they do, why care?

Can you think of a single free-market monopoly that hurt consumers, e.g. by raising prices?



You mention the calculation problem. The calculation problem which makes society-wide central planning virtually impossible also makes large corporations less efficient than smaller ones. Absent various government policies that tend to prop up large corporations against their smaller competitors, the optimal firm size would, in an industry-dependent way, be significantly smaller than what we are seeing today.

Even if a company could rise to dominate a particular market niche, that is very far from dominating society. Microsoft is big, but still represents a small fraction of American GDP. The same holds for any once corporation. Your concerns about a corporation being able to purchase their own police power are less warranted than concerns about the US President ordering the Marines to take over Congress and institute martial law.

When you stop and think about it for a moment you'll see that the President's chances in a society in which most people believe in the Constitution are much better, given his already very strong position of power and authority, than they of any corporation in a society in which people generally believe in property rights.

[truth_seeker]

For a small anarchy to continue to exist, conditions must be ripe not just in terms of its own populace, but also in terms of the international community.

Unless a large country converts all at once, a small anarchy (like a small government-controlled country) would find it difficult to defend itself. Drug trafficking could be one excuse, but finding excusing would be very easy. Allegations of money laundering or being a tax haven, harbouring fugitives, allowing child pornography, gambling and prostitution, and on and on. The number of victimless offences that would be tolerated in an anarchy but frowned upon by other nations is virtually endless.

And then they'll lie...

Agreed ... while we could reach "closer" to anarchism via a greater appreciation for federalism, it could not be a lawless society, which refuses to conform to the basic norms of the nation/world it lives in. Eventually, it would be snuffed out.

We are evidently not working off the same definition of anarchism. You seem to identify it with a non-coercive society. I merely define anarchy as a society not governed by a central government.

Medieval anarchies shouldn't be expected to bear closer resemblance to an ideal non-coercive society than Athenian Democracy does to modern social-democracy.

Under anarchist theory, self-defense is the only valid justification for coercion. Many versions of anarchist philosophy believe this "natural right" cannot be delegated to a third party. This, in its bare form (until you start scratching beneath the surface) is at least consistent, since delegation of self defense to a third party creates a state, or state equivalent (in the Hobbesian sense), although anarchists (in many cases) disagree with Hobbes. They generally believe the state only exists to uphold property rights, rather than to sustain law and order.

I don't think we're necessarily defining anarchism differently (I do acknowledge anarcho-capitalism can loosely fit within the definition of anarchism), but rather, I think we're defining the term "state" differently. You seem to hold a view similar to syndicalism, except that you would like capitalists to be the syndicalists (rather than workers). You (like conventional syndicalists) imagine that this will not become a state equivalent, based on a relatively mythic view of the free market (which is not supported by empirical evidence).

I simply acknowledge the lessons of history. Both unbridled capitalism (with no checks beyond unproven assumptions about how people will "organically" behave in a stateless, free market society), and mob rule, are both terrible ideas. It's not that I don't acknowledge that the market is in most cases a good mechanism, or that people are incapable (in most cases) of making good decisions under a democratic framework, it's just that in both cases, when something goes wrong, it goes terribly wrong, because there's no restraint on the "perceived" self-interest of individuals or groups. Thus, it becomes a terribly unstable system.

For whatever reason, a "call to the wild" philosophy is gaining popularity, a classic example of the naturalistic fallacy. Any scientist worth his salt can tell you, something is not better by mere caveat of it being "natural" (indeed, nature can be quite brutish, and unless you believe in mysticism, it's also a very impersonal mechanism). Yes, altruism exists in nature (at this point, this is fairly well understood among biologists), but so does savagery, self-interest, tribalism, etc. This is not unique to humans, but we're also no exception to this rule. The only thing that distinguishes us from our fellow animals, is our greater intellectual capacity. Thus it follows that without a highly intellectual society, anarchism is a pipe dream, or I should say, a nightmare.

You'd want to emulate their positive features, even as you emulate different features of other societies, or create new ones to fit modern circumstances and sensibilities.

Lack of perfect historic examples has never stopped either failed or successful social reformers. There was a first time for everything - democracy, non-slaved-based society, equal opportunities to women, the rule of law, etc.

Well, at least you admit there are no reasonably adequate historical examples of a "completely" stateless society, or at least not one in a densely populated, modern technological society, like our own (you're half way home)

Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, we in fact do have examples of why this cannot work. Robust laissez faire (with a minimal state) has been tried, absence of law and order has been tried, obviously there were non-slave based societies before there were slave based societies (we didn't crawl out of the primordial soup with our own personal slave), etc.

In each case, before the first example emerged, critics could argue with equal logic that lack of historic examples doomed the project. Since many such projects did work out, the logic that lack of historic examples is definitive is obviously faulty.

We had a country without an EPA, SEC, FDIC, etc. I will say this much, federal regulation is often manipulated by companies (via lobbying) for the purposes of reducing their exposure to liability, which of course denies citizens the right to petition a court for the redress of wrongs.

If the majority of people were racist, any society, regardless of form of government would be racist. Do I need to cite examples of racist democracies?

A non-coercive society relies for its ongoing stability on the majority sharing certain values, chief amongst them the primacy of property rights as legitimising the use of force. If that value is not broadly shared, society will quickly descend into government.

Again, you're relying on the perfect, or near-perfect society wish. I agree, if everyone were as rational as Dr. Spock, we wouldn't need a state. It doesn't really do much good to "say" you oppose utopian ideology, or quasi-utopian ideology, when following your reasoning to its logical conclusion, leads to that result.

An enforcement agency would thus be legitimised in using force to enforce such judgements. If compliance is not provided voluntarily, it will be forced.

I believe that once self-defense is delegated to a third party, you have a state equivalent, you have the availability of coercive power, and men acting in their self-interest, will try and control that power. What you seem to be advocating against is democracy. You think the market is apparently more reliable than people, but in my view the market (like governments) are no better than its participants. In other words, if you have an irrational population, you will have an irrational market, so a near-perfect market relies on the wide dissemination of information, and a sufficient level of intellectual aptitude among the population. Again, this relies on the perfect, or near-perfect society wish.

Indeed, we know intelligence is largely a function of genetics (environment plays a role, but a much less significant role compared to genetics). This is unfortunately an empirical, well tested fact that we need to fit into our philosophy.

I don't really like the word coercion. It has blurry meanings. It can be used to designate both legitimate and illegitimate activities. By philosophy is based on the Non Aggression Principle. Any action which violates the NAP is illegitimate and criminal. Any action consistent with NAP is legitimate and cannot be resisted using force.

Thus if force is used to recover stolen property, you can call it coercion if you like, but I believe that action to be legitimate, and have no issue with a society in which it is accepted.

I agree with you here, I simply acknowledge that a private police force is no different than a state police force, except that the state retains a monopoly on law enforcement. However, if monopolies occur naturally, as a function of humans pursuing their perceived self-interest, then we invariably wind up with a state equivalent (notice I used the term "perceived" ... and not "rational" self-interest, since I have less faith in the rationality of humans than say Ayn Rand).

In Finland, people sentenced to jail are sent home because jails are overfull. Later they receive a notice in the mail asking them to come and serve their sentence. They almost invariably do come. So people judged so criminal as to warrant imprisonment are peacefully cooperating with institutions they believe to be legitimate. It isn't unusual.

We can assume, in the first instance, the criminal was not capable of a reasonable level of cooperation with social norms. In the Finland case, the coercive power of the state creates a choice in the mind of the criminal, where he can weigh the benefits of cooperation. First, he hoped he wouldn't be caught. Now that he's caught and convicted, his choices become either exile (but in today's world of extradition agreements, this isn't a very feasible option), remaining a wanted man for his entire life, or doing a few years in a Finnish prison (which hopefully isn't as savage as a US prison). Even a fairly irrational person will likely have enough sense to make the right choice. We can also assume they don't do this for very serious crimes, where the sentence will be lengthy (where becoming a fugitive is much more tempting).

In addition, a market anarchy would have much stronger tools with which to defend itself against criminals. For one thing, with all "public" spaces being privately owned, responsible and responsive landlords are likely to institute a policy of excluding known criminals from their territory. A criminal may well find himself effectively shunned by society. That threat may easily make the difference towards cooperation.

Two words ... slum lord, you're relying on the imaginary benevolent capitalist. This problem was exponentially worse when the state was much weaker and smaller.

Finally, my system doesn't break down with non-cooperating criminals. Use of force against them may well be authorised and justified. The extra precautions required would make the process a bit costlier, but then the cost is charged to the criminal.

I like concepts like restorative justice, even possibly forcing serious criminal to pay remuneration to the victim (and strictly enforcing those judgments). I just fail to see the distinction between privatized socialism and public socialism (i.e. how your privatized state should not be considered a state-equivalent, when for all practical purposes, in terms of its effects on the average persons life, it of course would be).

The Bill of Rights, even if it were actually followed (remember the 9th and 10th amendments?), would do nothing of the sort. While slightly limiting the powers of the Federal government, it does nothing to limit the power of state governments. Further, the Constitution authorises many violations of natural rights, all without any moral justification.

I assume you're speaking of property rights, and I would say the burden of proof is on you ... to prove that property somehow encompasses a "natural right" (a term, which in my view, is grossly abused, over-applied, and in most cases, it reduces to a subjective wish list, not remotely based on empirical evidence).

I don't mind saying that property rights serve a utilitarian purpose, in many (though not all) cases. I would say the right of self-defense is a natural right, since we know things like fight or flight are indeed natural (caused, in part, by biochemical hormones) ... but property rights? We might use arguments like the problem of the commons to support property rights, but calling it a natural right is unsupportable, and yes, give me scientific method over philosophical sophistry any day of the week

Any idea which relies on "everyone being perfect" would indeed be a utopian dream. However, the society I envision doesn't rely on any such thing. In (stable) society, the majority shares ideas regarding the origins of legitimate use of force, whether based on the Divine Right of Kings or on the Constitution. A market anarchy would simply replace that broad, general idea with a different one, namely property rights (themselves a manifestation of NAP).

Criminals would still exist, as would disease and even body odour. I am not describing a utopia, but merely a society more just than our own.

This is an urban myth. Both theoretically and historically, unregulated capitalism has consistently benefited consumers. There have been examples of companies growing to dominate certain markets, but invariably they arrived and maintain their status by providing superior products to consumers. If they do, why care?

Can you think of a single free-market monopoly that hurt consumers, e.g. by raising prices?

You mention the calculation problem. The calculation problem which makes society-wide central planning virtually impossible also makes large corporations less efficient than smaller ones. Absent various government policies that tend to prop up large corporations against their smaller competitors, the optimal firm size would, in an industry-dependent way, be significantly smaller than what we are seeing today.

Even if a company could rise to dominate a particular market niche, that is very far from dominating society. Microsoft is big, but still represents a small fraction of American GDP. The same holds for any once corporation. Your concerns about a corporation being able to purchase their own police power are less warranted than concerns about the US President ordering the Marines to take over Congress and institute martial law.

When you stop and think about it for a moment you'll see that the President's chances in a society in which most people believe in the Constitution are much better, given his already very strong position of power and authority, than they of any corporation in a society in which people generally believe in property rights.

Interestingly, even libertarian market economists agree this could be a problem. Keep in mind, you're describing a society where a monopolist can not only gain control of the market, but can also acquire police power. This has happened in the past (e.g. the robber barons), and so we don't need to wonder what the results would be ... we can simply refer to our history books.

Your assumption is the free market provides an organic check against monopolies, and by caveat of inefficiency, monopolies, cartels, oligarchies, et al, will automatically fail. Of course we have no reason to believe this is true, and history teaches us otherwise; ergo, the problem with deductive arguments that rely on axiomatic premises (that generally beg the question). Even if the logic is sound, it really doesn't matter, because humans are not perfectly rational. Again, if we were all Klingon's, irrationality would not be a problem, but we're not, we're all too human!

[SecretSquirrel]

Hey truth seeker, do you know why the Robber Barons were able to get away with crushing market forces and strikes? It isn't because they were able to acquire private policing power. It's because the US Government forcefully acted to prevent their opponents and labor groups from organising their efforts to oppose the robber barons. Like with ALL ruinous monopolies in history, the negative effects of the Robber Barons were entirely due to the State actively intervening to protect them from market and societal forces

[Eran]

Rather than answer your message one by one, let me try and write a coherent view of how I see the prospect for a market anarchy.

I'll start with agreeing with you that history didn't furnish us with perfect (or even near-perfect) examples of such societies. As mentioned above, this in and by itself shouldn't deter us from pursuing such society.

I think free markets work much better than you imagine. To explore this difference between us, why don't you tell me which historic instances of free market operations you find unacceptable, or even sub-optimal. For example, the 19th century gets very bad (and in my opinion undeserved) reputation. I asked you before about examples of bad monopolies.

With respect to the emergence of regulatory agencies, what I believe happened was that a combination of increased wealth and changing technology created gaps between quality/safety produced by the market, and people's expectations. A problem had to be solved. The problem could be solved using regulatory dictates from above, or free market forces. Activists being people for whom those problems feel more urgent than for the population as a whole were too impatient to allow the market to work its solution. They preferred the "shortcut" of using government to advance their priorities.

Today, we are over 100 years into a route that uses government coercion to promote safety and quality. At this point it is difficult for people to even imagine how free markets could have solved those same problems. That, however, doesn't prove that markets couldn't have provided a superior solution, had they been given an opportunity to do so.



Next let's discuss some terms such as anarchy, government and coercion. I mentioned before that I don't like the term "coercion" because it is fuzzy. I prefer the term "aggression" which I define as the initiation of force. The term only makes sense if we first agree on property rights, as otherwise it is impossible to tell when an action is an initiation of force, or a retaliation, or defensive application of force.

What characterises libertarianism is very specifically the process whereby property rights can be acquired (see here for a Stephen Kinsella essay that makes the point better than I could). In particular, libertarians follow the Non Aggression Principle which I would formulate as "IT is wrong to use force against another person or his peaceful ongoing projects". I will be happy to detail property acquisition principles of libertarian theory and how they are derived from the NAP.

I see anarchy and state (or government) as being exact opposites. A society is an anarchy if it has no government, and vice-versa. Thus if we agree on the definition of government, we automatically agree on the definition of anarchy.

I define state as an organisation which effectively claims the monopoly over the legitimised use of force in a given territory. As far as I know, this is not a particularly libertarian or otherwise controversial definition. Do you agree?

An anarchy is a society in which no such organisation exists. That doesn't mean that in anarchy there is no aggression. Not every anarchy is libertarian, in other words, though full, complete and uncompromising application of libertarian principles can only be achieved in an anarchy.

That is because a state, by its definition above, is always a violator of NAP, if only as it maintains its monopoly over the use of force. In other words, even a minimal state restricting itself to the protection of property rights, and funded through voluntary contributions, is still an aggressor when it prohibits other organisations from offering similar property right protection services.



The society I am advocating is precisely one which accepts the NAP as its fundamental constitution. That doesn't mean that criminals do not exist, that people are perfectly rational, or well behaved. In fact the requirement is no more challenging than the requirement for a stable democracy. A stable democracy is conditional upon a broad acceptance of a democratic constitution, namely the principle that political legitimacy derives from majority opinion. A stable democracy doesn't require that 100% of the citizens obey laws instate through the majority process. A stable democracy can accommodate criminals. But if the bulk of the population doesn't believe in democratic legitimacy, a democracy last long. The world is full of examples.

I understand concerns about usurpation of power by wealthy groups in a market anarchy. But such usurpation is even less likely than the unlikely event that a president of a stable democracy uses his command over the armed forces to take over and install himself as dictator for life. The position of a president makes such take-over much easier (and therefore more likely) than the comparable take-over of a stable anarchy. I think this is pretty self-evident, but I'd be happy to expand.


You write that delegation of self-defence to third parties is, in your mind, "state equivalent". What do you mean? Are you implying that as such it is illegitimate, doesn't count as anarchy, or will invariably lead to a full state?

[Decky]

It's pretty simple, the richest people would hire massive armed gangs to go and enforce "justice" on everyone else. Imagine Somalia but instead of being the followers of an Abrahamic faith people would just worship money.

[Eran]

Decky,
Any society can be imagined to deteriorate into the rule of the powerful. History is full of democracies deteriorating into totalitarian states. What keeps a democracy stable is well-entrenched values of respect for democratic legitimacy.

The kind of society I (and others) advocate isn't characterised merely by lack of government. Lack of government is merely a conclusion of the primary attribute, namely respect for justly-acquired property rights (or, more fundamentally, the Non Aggression Principle).

It is telling that the only scenario you can paint of an unsympathetic market anarchy is one in which the NAP is obviously violated (by those "massive armed gangs".

I challenge you to come up with a negative scenario which is still consistent with the NAP.

[truth_seeker]

Hey truth seeker, do you know why the Robber Barons were able to get away with crushing market forces and strikes? It isn't because they were able to acquire private policing power. It's because the US Government forcefully acted to prevent their opponents and labor groups from organising their efforts to oppose the robber barons. Like with ALL ruinous monopolies in history, the negative effects of the Robber Barons were entirely due to the State actively intervening to protect them from market and societal forces

This is highly conjectural, and you really do bear a high burden of proof when making such a far reaching claim. To say that coercion in this context requires the existence of a state actor, is very problematic in my view (to put it mildly). Again, while biological altruism exists in nature, so does dominion, rape, violence, tribalism, and all sorts of unspeakable savagery.

I've studied consensus based societies (there's even a few examples around today), and law and order becomes reduced to mob rule and vigilante justice. I'm sorry, but reverting back to mob lynchings and the like, is not evolution, it's devolution. This doesn't imply that the state, as it currently exists, is anything close to ideal. But it does suggest that maybe there's a speck of truth in Hobbesian social contract theory, and some degree of coercive force may be necessary to uphold law and order (at least in extreme cases).

So the question becomes, do we trust a private sector that tends towards monopoly (by sheer caveat of humans pursuing what they perceive as their self-interest), do we adopt social anarchism (with mob rule as an almost inevitable feature), or do we admit that certain protections are necessary (which would be far less likely with the absence of a state)?

To uphold anarcho-capitalism, you really do have to have a high degree of faith (since there's no empirical evidence that would suggest the free market can provide a natural check against the accumulation of highly centralized monopolies, oligarchies, cartels, and similar structures). In other words, privatized socialism, where the free market evaporates, the price mechanism becomes distorted to the point where economic calculation becomes impossible, thus rendering our economy grossly inefficient (as seen in socialist economies in general).

[truth_seeker]

You write that delegation of self-defence to third parties is, in your mind, "state equivalent". What do you mean? Are you implying that as such it is illegitimate, doesn't count as anarchy, or will invariably lead to a full state?

I'll respond to this point, since I see nothing controversial in the way you're defining the relevant terminology.

In short, yes, I believe if coercive force can be delegated to a third party, you have a state or state equivalent. The only philosophical system I'm aware of that disallows this is individualist anarchism (they hold that the right of self defense cannot be delegated under any conditions, not even to a community, rather only an individual facing a threat to his physical safety, or who has been attacked, can justifiably use force in either defense or retaliation -- a view that I find somewhat ridiculous, I mean, how will the individual defend himself against a mob).

I think you're claiming that self-defense can be delegated to third parties, which would act like state police departments, except there's no state with monopoly power over law enforcement (thus policing becomes privatized, different security companies can compete with one another, etc.). I've seen numerous versions of this theory, and I like to approach this from the perspective of practical thought experiments.

Assuming exorbitant wealth can accumulate, firms like Microsoft will remain a possibility, assume the technology and internet market becomes dominated by say a dozen very large companies, who essentially gain control over information dissemination. Likewise, assume the media will be corporatized as it is today, they buy out small competitors, as information becomes less available, it becomes more difficult for new market entrants to compete in this media and information landscape (yes I know, this is happening as we speak anyway).

Now assume these companies collude with other companies. It doesn't take very much collusion, maybe a half dozen industry sectors, but the sectors that control the majority of resources. With their immense wealth they purchase overwhelming police power. By caveat of the motivation of self-interest, the trend is always towards monopolization. The only mitigating factor is competition, but particularly in cases concerning finite resources, the formation of cartels becomes almost inevitable (because with finite resources, it is a zero sum game of sorts, there's no infinitely expanding market). Sure, new technology could in theory step in to displace these cartels, but the motive of the cartels will always be to suppress the emergence of technology that would render them obsolete.

At least under social anarchism you would have a system like syndicalism, where firms are worker owned (e.g. cooperatives), where unions hold a strong position, and where this degree of wealth accumulation becomes extremely unlikely. Yes, mob rule remains a serious problem, but over-centralization becomes almost a non-issue. Maybe under this format, citizens of communities can reach voluntary agreements to delegate the law enforcement function, but again, this is a state equivalent (and it admits the Hobbesian problem at least to some degree). Moreover, the same problem of suppressing innovation would likely exist, but in a different way. I've never heard about a labor union that welcomed technology, which would reduce workforce size (thus, unions and conceivably cooperatives would behave similar to monopolies and cartels in this context).

In principle I don't mind anarchist philosophy (although I'd pick something akin to syndicalism over libertarianism). However, I think it's likely there would be an upper limit to the feasibility of this idea (in other words, we can trend towards an exceedingly smaller state, which would be a good thing, but there will likely be a point where we find that going any further would be destructive to society).

I wish when Ron Paul discussed blowing up agencies (yes, I assume he was joking, simply shutting them down would be adequate), he would have started with the most offensive and authoritarian agencies, like Homeland Security. Moreover, I don't mind a small regulatory role for the federal government, but I do believe congress has far exceeded it's power granted under the commerce clause (and in fact, while this regulatory regime was effective decades ago, at this point companies have learned how to game the system ... ergo, crony capitalism, and today this federal regulatory authority actually results in less protections for ordinary citizens).

Therefore, I simply believe that we should begin trending towards a more decentralized society. It's not that we won't need things like environmental regulation, or that it would be a good idea to trust companies to go against their self-interest and self regulate (even if we want to say that companies will have an incentive to self-regulate, because they may be punished by consumers for failing to do so, what if they pollute secretly, who will investigate, who will prosecute, how will consumers even know who the offender is)? I also think we should trend towards more civic participation in society, more voluntary association, more economic democracy (whether it be ESOP's, cooperatives, whatever), and yes, less regulation (or at least a gradual transfer of regulatory power from the federal level to states and localities), we can certainly experiment with more radical models, we can see how firms like cooperatives function relative to traditional hierarchical firms, etc. But I'm confident abruptly blowing up the state (metaphorically speaking) is a terrible idea. We seen what happened when the Soviet Union evaporated (and this is the natural consequence of going too far too fast).