25 votes

Does Anarcho-Capitalism Allow People To Form Governments?

I'm creating a new thread for this topic that has come up in another thread.

The Merriam-Webster Definition of "government":

: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.

: a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.

: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.

Oxford Dictionary definition:

"[TREATED AS SINGULAR OR PLURAL] The governing body of a nation, state, or community:
an agency of the federal government

Are people allowed to form governments in an anarcho-capitalist society?

If so, how can we continue to call a world where such is a possibility "anarchy"?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The difference

Even the most die-hard of anarchists, namely me, believes that a map room and a Registrar of Deeds is acceptable, to delineate property lines.

But the Register of Deeds has no business dictating how others may behave.

As far as preventing harm, Universal Constitutional Carry obviates the need for both police and the military. One, people will protect themselves from criminals (armed women don't get raped), and two, only governments start wars, and the USA is literally impossible to conquer because "A rifle behind every blade of grass."

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Yes, of course

If people want to delegate powers for practical reasons (to administer and manage the estate or seastead they live in, e.g. to organise waste collection, repairs/maintenance of common areas, security, common water supply, whatever) I believe they have every right to do so.

It is still anarchy because the different seasteads and estates exist in anarchy in relation to each other. People have the tendency to live in groups together, with certain rules. That's natural.

I recommend "The machinery of freedom" by David D. Friedman. It contains many interesting thought experiments of a free society.

UFOs are real
4 Hour Witness DVD (radar operators, pilots, scientists, military)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud49Gh9yYLs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpHAxxRKksQ

Anarchy

If that would still be anarchy, can't we say we live in "anarchy" today, since all these coercive states exist in anarchy in relation to each other?

If people choose to create systems by which to govern, I don't see how that can be "anarchy", which is explicitly defined as not having a formalized system.

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

Do birds allow the fish to swim?

Of course. And for the same reason.

After I posted my last comment I noticed much discussion about

the definition of government. I would like to point out that the dictionary is a tool to use but is by no means authoritative. What gives the dictionary the power to decide what words mean? Wichenstein, a fantastic philosopher, says that a definition of a word is how society at large interprets the word. I think he is right.

That being said, I have never heard of anyone refer to a government that didn't have the use of force on some level. Im sure they are some outliers but by in large everyone associates government (whether they realize it or not) with the "right to impose force."

Everyday people are making arrangements and making large scale planning but no one is calling them governments. We dont call large scale mines that plan for the next 50 years, and operate on billion dollar budgets, and make thousands of international agreements, have housing for thousands of people, have numerous rules and regulations governments do we?

Dictionaries

Are not the Dictators of what words mean; rather, they are reporters on what people generally mean when they use words.

"I have never heard of anyone refer to a government that didn't have the use of force on some level."

Of course governments use force to enforce the law. Is it immoral to use force to enforce natural law? No, it is only immortal to use force to enforce man-made laws upon people that don't agree to them.

Most people clearly view government according to the commonly held definition of word. To focus on only one aspect of government, or only on when government does terrible things or is poorly conceived, is completely illogical.

Do you honestly believe most people believe government is "that thing that violates everyone's rights?"

No, most people view government as an institution that is there to protect their rights; otherwise, there would be no outrage when it does the opposite.

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

No i dont believe

that people believe "that government is the thing that violates everyone's rights?" but I do think that the "right to impose force upon others" is a necessary PART of nearly everyone definition of government. Sure there are other things to like protection ect... but force is always an essential aspect of it.

Do you think if you took out the "right to impose force" part we would still call it government? I'm having a hard time imagining it looking like anything we have now.

you asked "Is it immoral to use force to enforce natural law?" I would say no it is not necessarily wrong but you cant violate natural law to enforce natural law viz. you cant take away peoples money (violating natural law) to protect people from others stealing from them.

I am curios how you enforce natural law without first violating it? and if you can do this does it still resemble government? Im not sure.

definition

"but I do think that the "right to impose force upon others" is a necessary PART of nearly everyone definition of government. Sure there are other things to like protection ect... but force is always an essential aspect of it."

why?

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

Why is force a necesary part of it?

Thats like asking "does a grocery store have to sell food?" Of course it has to sell food otherwise its not a grocery store.
Likewise, government is force at its most basic level. Once it stops using force it is no longer government.
You cant say "oh lets have a government without force" because then it is longer government. We would need a new word. As a AC im all for large organization that offer protection but im against force. So we need another word for those non-government things but for sure they cant be government.
Name one government that exists that doesnt use force?

let me rephrase

Of course government will *use* force to enforce it's laws, but even the most anarchist of anarchists are ok with force, as long as it comes from defense agencies. The question isn't whether government or individuals can "use force", the question is in what circumstances.

No, nobody should be allowed to form a government and force other people to be a part of that government, just as nobody outside of a government should be able to use force to prevent them from creating one.

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

those definitions are superficial and dont really describe

government. A closer definition of government would be " A perceived right of certain individuals to rule (use force) others" At the very most basic, underlying, fundamental idea of government is the idea that it can use force against people who do not do what they want. If they arent using force then it isnt government. For example, large companies make all kinds of rules, regulations, agreements contracts ect... but they dont use force, hence they arent considered government.
Can people come together and make agreements? sure. but to answer your question. No in an AC society you can not form governments. In fact thats a illogical statement.

So...

You would use force to prevent people from forming their own government? That is the conclusion I get from "No, in an AC society you can not form governments" (presuming you identify as an "AC")

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

This is merly a confusion based on how we are

using words.

By definition an AC society is one were people do not accept that others have the "right to impose force" upon others (this is part of a larger definition).

So to say that an AC society uses "force" to stop people from forming government is a illogical statement. Once people are forming government it is no longer an AC society because it is now considered that some people have the right to impose force on others. You cant have a AC society that uses force. So yes an AC society cannot use force to stop people from forming governments but if people formed governments then it is no longer a AC soceity.

AC society + force = Illogical statement (not an AC society)

Government+AC society = Cannot exist because they are contradictory terms.

Does that make sense?

What we have to determine

Is what constitutes a criminal act. If anarchists believe that a government, by definition, is criminal, then they are claiming the right to use force to stop government aka criminal activity?

So is the act of forming a government a criminal act?

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

Not quite right but close

I think using the word criminal is furthering the confusion. Anarchist believe that government uses force which is 'wrong' (in quotes because that can be a funny word). Anarchist, I would say, don't actually believe in the concept of government because government implies that 'someone has the RIGHT to use force against you.' Since i don't believe anyone can have that right, i don't believe governments exists. I believe gangs and mobs exists and they often have a good PR campaign that convinces people that they are good to them when in reality they just use force against them.
Sooo... when you say "then they are claiming the right to use force to stop government aka criminal activity?" I would say that is somewhat true, I am claiming the right to defend myself against people who try to use force against me. since government is made of people, yes i would defend myself against those people. I would not say that an Anarchist could ever try to use force (or 'government') to change/remove government because you would be implementing the same policy that you don't believe in.

"So is the act of forming a government a criminal act?" again thats a confusing question due to the term criminal. 'Forming' a government would be fine but as soon as one law/act was decreed they would have acted beyond they right and self defence of the people would be the appropriate response.

I think what you want me to say is that in a Anarchist society people are 'forcing' others to not form a government, which contradicts its basic principles. Anarchist arent stopping anyone from anything but once they start using force on anarchist, they will be ignored or it will end in a fight.

Sure!

As long as the association with said government is voluntary and there are no "border lines." ...that was an easy one.

Wait a sec

How and why would there be "no border lines". Are there border lines on your property?

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

personal property

Border lines are the only ones that exist in an ancap world.

right

bingo!

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

Just for argument sake; WHAT IS THE "SIMPLEST government?"

Just for argument sake; WHAT IS THE "SIMPLEST government" you can form?

Can you formulate the most basic and simple scenario in which such a "government" could possibly form?

A. So at least 2 people agree and form a contract.

^So does the "contract" count as "a governing entity" that enforces certain actions upon the participants?

B. At least 2 people agree and form a contract, and appoint one of the 2 people to be "the enforcer" of the contract upon these 2 individuals.

^This doesn't seems like it would work very well haha.

C. At least 2 people agree and form a contract, and appoint A THIRD person as "the enforcer" of the contract upon these 2 individuals.

^So would this "third person" count as a government?

----

What are the minimum requirements or criteria to qualify as "a government?"

No "governments" that impose on others would not "be allowed"

So "contracts" are possible. So MANY PEOPLE may choose to contract together, such as in DRO's. But forming a "government" as we see it now, that has the ability to force itself onto "non-contract parties," such as you the outsider THAT DID NOT contract into this DRO, would NOT BE BOUND by this "large contract entity" that wishes to pull you over and force you to do things; no that would not even be kosher with the idea of "contracts" or contract law. This is not very difficult to understand.

So "will they be allowed?" Well that is a trivial question. We have speed limits right now. "Will speeding be allowed?" Well, it kinda happens all the time.

So towns could create some "government type large contract entity" that has the power to pull you over, handcuff you, kidnap you, hold you captive, jail you, imprison you, beat you, steal from you, tax you, garnish your wages, and so on...

But WILL NEIGHBORING TOWNS ABIDE to these formed "large contract entities;?" When the neighboring town individuals are encroached upon by this new entity? And they fall victim to unagreed upon kidnappings, beatings, imprisonments, pull-overs, thefts, taxings, garnishings...?

----

I don't think that a "liberty minded society" that worked to achieve even near minarchism would be largely succeptable to such simple failings. If the society were smart enough to do away with centuries of oppression, indoctrination and propaganda...;

HOW COULD THEY BE so foolish to let a NEIGHBORING MAFIA form? In the style of the "boys in blue?"

----

So my answer to the OP is "no." These entities COULD FORM, just as speeding still happens, but that does not mean that "society will allow" for the violation that will occur.

Instead...

So instead of answering the actual question, you change the question. And answer the one you want to answer. It's amazing how much this stuff goes on here.

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

I don't know Marc

I think I was pretty clear about all the points that I made. Whatever "answers" I did give, were given plenty context; what is confusing about that Marc?

How about we start

with the title of your comment:

"No "governments" that impose on others would not "be allowed"

You seem to be answering a question I didn't ask. I never mentioned a government imposing on other people; I clearly refer to people forming their own government.

Care to revise? Or is that still not allowed? Would you use force to stop someone from forming a government that does *NOT* impose itself upon others (except in the enforcement of natural law, which all individuals and therefore any groups of individuals they might form have the right to uphold)

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

I think I asked you the same thing down below

In one of my other comments below. I asked "what is the simplest form of government that you could present?"

So that we can understand EXACTLY what you mean by "government?"

Because I outlined how groups of people could form contracts and honor them. That does not seem difficult to understand or explain.

But "contracts" seem far off from the idea of what most of us consider a "government." Usually for it to be considered "government," it has to be a controlling class of people, rulers; elected or otherwise.

----

Would you use force to stop someone from forming a government that does *NOT* impose itself upon others?

I would not use force to stop some peaceful organization that does not harm or impose upon the rights of individuals outside that organization.

Clear enough?

Sorry

I sometimes get lost in the sea of comments and don't manage to reply to every single one.

What I mean by government is how it is used in most dictionaries, and by most human beings. (see the definition in the original post). Let's try the Lockean definition for clarification:

"Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent. The only way whereby any one devests himself of his Natural Liberty, and puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other Men to joyn and unite into a Community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of their Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of it. This any number of Men may do, because it injures not the Freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the Liberty of the State of Nature. When any number of Men have so consented to make one Community or Government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one Body Politick, wherein the Majority have a Right to act and conclude the rest."

To address your further points.

"But "contracts" seem far off from the idea of what most of us consider a "government." Usually for it to be considered "government," it has to be a controlling class of people, rulers; elected or otherwise."

It is certainly far off from the modern conception of government, as a result of the bad philosophy of the individuals in our society. If you remove today's governments without changing the philosophy of the population, more coercive organizations will emerge overnight.

"I would not use force to stop some peaceful organization that does not harm or impose upon the rights of individuals outside that organization.

Clear enough?"

Yes. That means it is ok with you if people form governments, and you are not an anarchist.

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

"...and you are not an anarchist."

I don't know about all this haha. I was clearer in my earlier posts what I and perhaps others in society "would tolerate." But if my basic philosophy for anarchism is NAP and property rights, how can I also make it my philosophy "That I will act against the nap when I see something that resembles a government entity? That I will act violently against people that are not harming me or violating my natural rights?"

These are contradictory philosophies. So no one could maintain both; not consistently.

Yes. That means it is ok with you if people form governments, and you are not an anarchist.

But I don't care what LABELS are layed down. The same goes on with "agnostics and atheists." People get caught up on popular labels.

Address the principles, not the labels.

philosophy

"how can I also make it my philosophy "That I will act against the nap when I see something that resembles a government entity? That I will act violently against people that are not harming me or violating my natural rights?"

Exactly. So we are clear here. Though I would take it a step further. You CAN act violently against people that are not harming your or violating your natural rights *if they are violating the natural rights of others*. Nobody has the right to violate the natural rights of others, even in their own "sovereign" territory.

'Address the principles, not the labels."

This is why I stick to principles, but I am responding to the people here who want to saddle my principles with one label or another, both of which I take issue with.

And labels and their meaning are surely important when explaining ideas to others. It certainly makes more sense to me to use the commonly held definitions of words than try to convince the entire world to accept completely new definitions that rightly sound bonkers to them.

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

here is what you can do....

You can provide the same services as government. eg: you could start a court system, security force, a jail, retirement fund, an unemployment insurance fund, health insurance, etc. What you could not do is force people to be customers of those businesses.

If you own property, then you could make it a dictator/police state and the rules are as you see fit. But the free society outside of your property would not be sending people back on extradition and no one would want to visit jail town voluntarily. You would soon find yourself all alone.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Is there a distinction between GROUP and INDIVIDUAL contract?

There seems there should be a distinction between GROUP and INDIVIDUAL contract?

Consider the following Rothbard quote:

In a country, or a world, of totally private property, including streets, and private contractual neighborhoods consisting of property-owners, these owners can make any sort of neighborhood-contracts they wish. In practice, then, the country would be a truly “gorgeous mosaic,” … ranging from rowdy Greenwich Village-type contractual neighborhoods, to socially conservative homogeneous WASP neighborhoods. Remember that all deeds and covenants would once again be totally legal and enforceable, with no meddling government restrictions upon them. So that considering the drug question, if a proprietary neighborhood contracted that no one would use drugs, and Jones violated the contract and used them, he fellow community-contractors could simply enforce the contract and kick him out. Or, since no advance contract can allow for all conceivable circumstances, suppose that Smith became so personally obnoxious that his fellow neighborhood-owners wanted him ejected. They would then have to buy him out—-probably on terms set contractually in advance in accordance with some “obnoxious” clause.

So in Rothbard's stated scenario, multiple people make large "group contracts." But I do not agree with this. I mean a fixed amount of people can INDIVIDUALLY AGREE to a contract among other people, in whatever number they please. But YOUR GROUP AGREEMENT is NOT BINDING UPON ME THE OUTSIDE INDIVIDUAL.

So 10 neighbors can contract together, but you the 11th neighbor are no way bound by this "ten man contract."