29 votes

Calling all Daily Paulers! What are your main objections to "anarcho-capitalism"?

Ladies and gents, later this week I will be speaking with Robert Murphy to record an interview for the Lions of Liberty Podcast on the subject, "Objections to anarcho-capitalism". It's been a point of debate here quite a bit, so let's try and sort this stuff out!

Post below, and I will pick some questions to ask him for the show. Thanks!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No, your word choice -- your

No, your word choice -- your vocabulary -- is fine. Some of your comment, especially the bottom quarter or third, came out of nowhere. I couldn't connect some of what you said to what you typed before it and to what I typed. Because I couldn't make connection, I was confused.

As for your vocabulary matching my vocabulary, I don't know if it does. I don't pay attention to vocabulary standard achievements. For all I know, your vocabulary is superior to mine. Whether it is, I'm indifferent.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

the confusion between the state and the courts

they don't understand that the origin of courts and the origin of government are completely different.

there must be a way to equitably settle disputes and protect the rights of the individual.

the future I have heard described by anarcho-capitalists sounds more distopian than our current sad state of affairs.

An understanding of basic civics would solve many of the issues they can't wrap their head around.

1) A community CAN own infrastructure together without creating a Government. Many people think that is the current way infrastructure is owned, but it is not. Currently, the government owns the infrastructure, not you and me, we are not the government.
-You can even have a group of men with the power to oversee the maintenance of commonly owned infrastructure without having ANY power over the individuals who use the infrastructure.

2) A community CAN put in place plans for community services, and even have a group of men who perform those services without the power to compel people to use those services or restrict others from offering competing services.

3) A community CAN establish a court system that is the apex authority over controversies brought before it...without creating a government. Society benefits greatly from having a place to take have their controversies settled without becoming the hatfields and mccoys. A court system makes the weakest and most in firmed individual as powerful as the biggest money interest and ensures that any harm can be made right, so long as a jury of your peers agree. It authorizes different levels of force to achieve restoration for harm. And the final decision makers are your peers.

Those are just 3 points. That being said, the above is an anarcho-capitalist society, but these issues are rarely raised because people don't understand what government is.

When you understand what government is then you understand basic civics and you don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Government is the entity that has achieved military dominance over society and it typically grants itself the power to harm with impunity.

You can get rid of the people who claim the authority to micromanage your daily affairs, and put you in cages, and execute you on the side of the road, and steal your children to murder other children, and take your stuff when and how they want.

You are wrong

If the people authorize the use of force it is a government. Especially in the one case that matters- dispute resolution.

i don't think so

but it wouldn't be the first time.

Well said

Here, here. Legal systems do not require predation.

Séamusín

Semantics

A legal system is a government

A legal system is

governance not government.
Government is one kind of entity that can administer a legal legal system.

Governance can and does exist without government.

Governance is not government?

What planet are you talking about?

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I dont think you know what the words

Semantics and predation mean...

Séamusín

!

:)

I guess I would like to believe its possible too but...

The popular phrase "its semantics" I understood as being a tomayto tomahto. Wiki semantics is the relations and meaning between signifiers (words). In this case I say "government" is X but you say "government" is Y and X is a "legal system".

But governments exist in tribal societies. I would say a government exists anytime you give the power of enforcement to an arbitrator-- a government is a chief with a club and a government exists whenever a system exists that can coerce you into accepting the decisions of a court/arbitrator even when you have an honest dispute (an honest dispute is one in which both parties believe they are right).

I suppose minarchist systems could exist as a legal system without plunder, without involuntary property seizure or taxation. The best answer I have heard is contract enforcement taxes. If you agree to be part of a mutual defense community (with enforcible arbitration) then you pay a contract tax (I wouldnt call this an anarchy, as this could be a nondemocratic arrangement). Perhaps the community also agrees to enforce contracts with outsiders for a double tax (import tax).

However this community makes no guarantees to people who live in the community and dont pay taxes so it tends to be fragile under real world conditions (invasion, bribery, economic stress).

Contract and tax are mutually exclusive concepts.

a tax is a nonconsensual taking and the entity doing the taxing has no obligation to provide anything in return.

also, I've given it much thought and government does not happen anytime you give enforcement to an arbitrator. I can think of many examples where I have given the power of enforcement to an arbitrator and did not create a government.

Government is an entity that has achieved sufficient rule making/military dominance over a society that it can grant itself the power to harm with legal impunity.

3 elements:
1) Distinct entity.
2) Achieves rule making/ military dominance over a society.
3) Can grant itself the power to harm with legal impunity.

It is composed of a lawmaker and those the lawmaker employs to enforce its will.

It is possible to have governance without government.

You are wrong. Its illegal to initiate force.

You might be right about taxes though. Perhaps if taxes are voluntary I should say contract enforcement fees?
The government recognizes no private organization that has the right to force you to do things. Nor do I know of any arbitration association that has the right to enforce its verdicts (e.g. https://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/home). Arbitration associations issue recommendations that can still be challenged in a court of law. If you make a controversial claim, provide an example. I dont really have a good definition so there may be additional critirea.

precisely. we agree.

And you have successfully proven two of your points false.
"If the people authorize the use of force it is a government."
"I would say a government exists anytime you give the power of enforcement to an arbitrator"
-As you point out, even though I have given the power of enforcement to an arbitrator, it didn't create a government. Even though I authorized the use of force, I still created no government.
--Why? Because government is a distinct entity that has achieved rule making/military dominance over a society and can give itself the power to initiate harm with legal impunity. And as you point out, my authorization is not sufficient to do any of that.
---In fact, consent/authorization is not even a factor. Specifically, Government can initiate harm in spite of your/societies consent/ authorization. You are not a part of it, it does not work for you, its not your employee or your agent, and it doesn't get its power from your authorization. It uses the power it grants itself to harm you with legal impunity to GOVERN you. It can take what it wants, when it wants, and if you disobey, it can lock you in a cage; if you resist, it can put you in the ground. And its more than happy to do so 24/7.
----Simply "authorizing the use of force" or "giving the power of enforcement" is not sufficient to create/establish a government. Your authorization would be limited to the power of agency, where the one you authorize is limited to what you have power to authorize. And only a government can initiate harm with legal impunity.
(And the proposition with all the legal qualifiers is: Government can grant itself the power to initiate direct proximate and nonconsensual harm.)

I didnt mean to agree with your example.

I meant to challenge your arbitration example as it was an illegal arrangement. However if I assume your example is true (and therefore an illegal arrangement) it does present an interesting case to consider: is the mafia a government when it arbitrates illegal activities among its own members? I would tend to think not. But maybe,.
That said what I said is also different from what you said:

I would say a government exists anytime you give the power of enforcement to an arbitrator--a government is a chief with a club and a government exists whenever a system exists that can coerce you into accepting the decisions of a court/arbitrator even when you have an honest dispute (an honest dispute is one in which both parties believe they are right).

WHile the first part of what I said implies governments require your consent. The second part addresses a more general case and hypothesizes a test that would be sufficient for knowing whether a government exists. However it might also say the mafia is a government (for its own members).

the mafia

is a perfect example...

If a mafia achieves sufficient rule making/ military dominance over a society that it can grant itself the power to harm with legal impunity then yes, it is a government.

Until it can grant itself the power to harm with legal impunity, it is a mafia.

Co-operatives and Anarchism

If there are any priorities in my scheme, anything to be called a “first step”, I would say it was the building of alternative institutions. The reason for this is that I see such institutions as the building blocks of a transfer culture. They are the institutions of the new society as closely as we can approximate them within the old society. Moreover, in the process of building alternative institutions, we will invariably confront all of the problems of fashioning a transfer culture.

-Howard Ehrlich, ‘How to get from here to there’, op. cit., p. 15.

Question for Bob

Are you a fan of objective natural law a la Rothbard, or are you more in favor of polycentric law as promoted by David Friedman? Do you consider Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress a valid libertarian tort?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Sorry Ed

Didn't see this question and didn't go to in depth on his view of natural rights, but I know he is a Rothbard guy and I've seen him write before regarding his belief in natural rights.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

No problemo, Marc

My fault for posting it late. Looking forward to the interview being posted.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

The world already has anarchy ...

... because the governments of the world are anarchic with regard to each other. There is no world government.

In spite of the fact that most governments are run by psychopaths, most governments find a way to get along.

It's those VERY FEW bastard psychopaths, who trick their own people into believing they should go kill someone on the other side of the planet because (a) they wear a costume and (b) somebody "in authority" tells them to do it, that are the real problem in the world.

Government or no government, those people would still exist. It's just that with government-worship by the general population, they are more likely to get away with it.

Rothbard quote

...the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the "nature of man," given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.

http://mises.org/daily/2429

Two logical syllogisms and further thoughts

1. A free market requires the absence of force from exchange. (If force is used in exchanges, there is not a free market.)

2. There can't be a free market in anything, for example security services, if force is not already eliminated from exchanges.

3. A free market can't eliminate force from exchanges, since it can't exist until force is already eliminated from exchanges.

---

1. If use of force is not eliminated from exchanges, there is not a free market.

2. A free market does not exist if force is used in exchanges.

3. A free market cannot eliminate use of force in exchanges, because it doesn't exist until force is already banished from exchanges.

---

1. There is never a time in which the use of force is not open to all. There is always a "free market," to borrow the term, in force.

2. The outcome of this open field for force-use is the "decision" of the "free force market."

3. All parties can at all times use force at will. Whatever the outcome from this process in terms of force-use is the decision of the "free market" in force.

4. If this outcome is government, that is the free market outcome; both force, and exchange, were open options, and force was selected.

5. If the prevailing monopolist of force denies use of force to others, without other restrictions, only exchange is left open. This is the "free market," as typically understood.

---

Can a system of purely voluntary exchanges provide a stable mechanism to prevent force from being used unlawfully?

Can an exchange market that is freed of force by a previously established force monopoly be converted into a self sustaining and self regulating system where legal exchanges pay for the maintenance of the legal and punitive apparatus to punish use of force that is not according to mutually agreed upon contracts?

I think the answer is no. I think it would be an unstable system with the agents who owned the force disregarding the laws of weaker agents of force.

Since this is exactly how force agents behaved prior to establishment of a force monopoly, it is reasonable to presume that this is how independent force agents would behave after the abolition of a force monopoly.

Once the force monopoly is dis-established, the exchange market, free of force, is destroyed, and you revert to a "free market" in force -- the converse of a free exchange market, where force is eliminated by from exchange by the force monopolist.

Is that the right question?

> Can a system of purely voluntary exchanges provide a
> stable mechanism to prevent force from being used unlawfully?

How about: Can a system of purely voluntary exchanges provide a stable mechanism to prevent force from being used immorally?

Then the answer becomes "yes."

(For your original question, the answer depends on what is considered "lawful," but the phrasing suggests that the notion of "lawful" is arbitrary. If so, you're probably right that violations of arbitrary laws are hard to prevent. They're obviously hard to prevent in the system of slavery you advocate aren't they?)

Your suggestion that a free market in exchange might be created by a monopoly of force is interesting and has evidently never been observed. A monopoly in force, it seems, is *always* used to make sure that force is involved in exchange. Since this is historically how it arose, one would assume the *purpose* of a monopoly in force is to make sure that exchange is forcibly maintained from the productive to the ruling caste.

The Might makes Might lie

The story is that Might makes Right.

That reminded me of a curious absence in the so called "libertarian rehtoric," whereby there is a scarce supply of objection to false advertizing.

I don't suppose that the current farmer is in any way connected to the Farmer of "anti" federal infamy?

Joe

Thanks everyone!

I won't be able to get all of these great questions in the time allotted, but I will do my best to at the very least touch on the main points. Interview in an hour!

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thanks Marc, for sparking a great discussion!

Looking forward to the interview.

When's it going to drop?

Best,
Michael

He's the man.

Welcome!

And again, thanks to everyone for participating and getting involved here, it really helped me craft my questions for the interview (which went great). Bob was very gracious and stayed on for 20 minutes longer than we'd agreed upon, so we got to cover a lot.

This will be released as part of *next* week's Lions of Liberty Podcast, this week I'll be speaking with Ademo Freeman, founder of CopBlock - (listen this Friday at 7pm EST at Daily Paul Radio!!! - cheap plug!)

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Two reasons of my own

1) I don't trust that humanity is capable. History shows that in power vacuums war lords and dictators rise to power. People who are willing to hurt others to get what they want.

2) There is an efficiency in delegating societal administrative duties to full time workers. Things like developing and managing infrastructure, water sources, etc. Not only in time, but the fact that most families don't individually have the capital to build and manage such things. Granted one doesn't need a government to perform this function. I could see it be done with things like cooperatives or association type organizations. But really what is the difference between such organizations and a small government? Isn't a local, well managed government basically a coop?

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

number 2

the answer to number 2 is power to harm with legal impunity.

A coop does not have the power to harm with legal impunity while a small government does. That's the single distinguishing trait that makes government different from any organization found in society.

A government is a distinct entity that has achieved rule making/military dominance over a society that it can grant itself the power to harm with legal impunity.