Arguments Against Anarchy Mises Daily: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 by Jarret B. Wollstein [This article is excerpted from Society Without Coercion.]
So we should overthrow our current government, so we can eventually rebuild it. Why not skip the part where everyone goes insane without government, and just make the current government better? The current government's permanence is determined by the morality and rationality of the men and women compromising it. We simply need to educate the people of the lack of morality and rationality and they should be on board for reforming the current government to a more rational and moral state. How can we preach for the destruction of a system which will rise again due to the nature of humans to band together to prevent outside aggression, and share the burden's of life?
Social order does not necessarily translate into 'centralized state government'. The point is that government's conceptional purpose cannot be fulfilled while government exists as we know it, and in fact the conceptional purpose is more adequately and efficiently fulfilled in absence of government (as an entity).
A centralized state government is not the same as government. I wish to change the current government (as we know it) to one that is not the same. I therefore agree. lol.
Private citizens. Could be like a subscription service, or even insurance of some kind. Private neighborhoods already employ private security services all the time, so do commercial buildings. Hell, even the government hires private security firms.
What if I could fund an agency that made picking your nose illegal? Would this mean money makes the laws? A literal, "He who has the gold, makes the rules."
As opposed to government having a monopoly on law and making things like cannabis illegal? In any case, private security firms wouldn't create law in an anarchist society, they'd simply protect their customers within the bounds of accepted common law founded on the NAP. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard
Something along the lines of a "Bill of Rights?" Cannabis prohibition could be even more easily maintained... If the entire State of California cannot stop federal raids... how could a smaller private secrutiy force stop one funded by Exxon and Dupont?
I'd imagine private security wouldn't extend into the realm of positive rights, otherwise you'd have war with those groups who protect negative rights. A positive right requires action of or on another individual, it can only exist with an institution that has been sanctioned coercion. I guess some rich people could hire private armies and terrorize the lands, but it's likely that the people will fund a resistance force, or simply await rescue by vigilante samurai. edit: And if it's funded by a group or individual that relies on public support, such as a business like Exxon or Dupont, they would quickly be met with damaging boycotts and retaliatory attacks.
If governments regulate positive rights, what would stop the private governments? If Exxon can keep cannabis illegal now, with a "transparent" government, how could we force them to tell us what laws they are influencing with multiple private governments? Especially if the positive right to know what Exxon lobbyists are up to are of little concern to these types of agencies. It's a nice idea... that bad governments/practices could go out of business. But unfortunately, bad government is practiced because it receives the most funding. It would seem to me that instead of pointing one finger at one group of corrupt swine, we'd have to point many fingers at many groups of swine.
Competition I guess. If there's one thing the state is good at it's creating monopolies. I think that can be handled by consumer perception, and basic understanding of the non-aggression principle. The "libertarian code" would have to be a generally accepted principle for a stateless society to exist. And there would be private or voluntary watch-dog spy groups. It was a bunch of bloggers that uncovered Climategate...
'Bad' government receives the most funding only because it already has an established monopoly on law which it then uses to pursue coercive theft of its citizens (income tax). There would be no (coercive) monopoly on law in an anarchist society. The arbiters who receive the most funding would only be receiving the most funding because they do their job the best. And this is assuming there would be a single arbiter with monopoly of the market share, which really isn't probable at all.
If the Libertarian Code were generally accepted there'd be no bad government and probably no talk of replacing the government. I think the income gap would show it's effects in this new age of legislation. (just as it does now) Anyway, cool thread... I'm going to sleep.
The "libertarian code" generally isn't readily understood or known by most people, thus it can't be generally accepted... if it was common knowledge, on the other hand, whose to say it wouldn't be generally accepted. That being said, I don't really see much of a reason why people would attempt to deny the basic principles of libertarianism.
So the robber is only brought to justice if the victim has the funds/will to do so? That seems like it would encourage predation on the lower class.
Everyone pays for criminal justice now by way of taxes, whether we want to or not. On top of that, we really have no say, by and large, in how the criminal justice system operates regardless of the fact that our money pays for it. How often do you require the services of the police or the courts anyway? Everyone has a different valuation of security, so it stands to reason we should be able to invest as much as we'd like for the police to satisfy or particular desires in terms of security. Just like depending on how hungry we are at any given moment will determine how much we spend on food to fill our stomachs. Privatization just gives us choices, and makes that choice actually worth the money they put into it. Government is inefficient whenever it comes to expenditure of money, why would the criminal justice system be any different? Does predation of the lower class not already occur in our current system? Is it the rich who make up the vast majority of our inmates? You should read Rothbard's chapter on the police, imo. Others have made the case as well, in different or similar ways, but Rothbard makes some very compelling points. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard
Well, by "libertarian code," I mean libertarianism... which should be common knowledge as a result of logic and reason. It's not like non-coercion is some kind of hidden piece of knowledge to be learned. People reject libertarianism by rationalizing it to be idealistic or foolish and instead try to justify whatever coercive tactics are taking place. I don't see why libertarianism is rejected by society so much either... but the same people who reject it now, will make up any other society.
I suspect it has something to do with the fact that people are afraid to entertain the notion that our political system might be so corrupt that they have been purposely screwing us over for a while now... instead they look for hope in the material world of politics when there is none to behold. People don't want to admit that our physical bodies are completely controlled and basically on a crash course for disaster since this would require any hope for the future to be had in strictly nonphysical terms. People put their hope in the current political system because they are afraid to put their hope in humanity as a whole/God, rather than their own finite life. You can't be a scientific atheist, believe the conspiracy theory of history, and maintain belief in a hope of something better in the future all at the same time.
Sounds like guys like Tony Soprano would do well in this community.. Private security services = Private army.. The richer you are, the more cops on your payroll.. Sounds kinda like what you have now in the US only taking it to the limit.. This kind of system would suit the rich.. The more money you have, the more power you have.. It will never happen.. How could it? Do you really think the average man on the street would tolerate or want this.. Replacing Big Brother with Big Rich Brother.. Madness..