Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Guest jdr18

Anarchy / Minarchy / Competing Governments

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Welcome to the forums!

The reason there needs to be government, as you probably have already heard, is to protect people's rights. As to whether or not people should be able to use reason to decide which organizations to support: well, taxation should be voluntary, so if the government was so detrimental to your values, there'd be no point in funding it. Besides, there would be nothing not to value about a properly limited government.

Similarly to LovesLife, I can't tell if you're advocating competing governments, or something like that. In which case, it's quite important that the government has a legal monopoly on the regulation of the use of force. As to why, I'll just quote the third entry of the Lexicon article for Anarchy: ''Suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.''

The logical heirarchy for why there should be a government is pretty simple: men have rights, and in order to live in a civilized society, they must be recognized; in order for there to be objective law protecting individual rights, there has to be an organization with a legal monopoly on the use of force to define and enforce objective laws, while limiting itself to only those actions through police, courts, and military.

I'm not even going to pretend to know what the heirarchy is that justifies anarcho-capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums!

The reason there needs to be government, as you probably have already heard, is to protect people's rights. As to whether or not people should be able to use reason to decide which organizations to support: well, taxation should be voluntary, so if the government was so detrimental to your values, there'd be no point in funding it. Besides, there would be nothing not to value about a properly limited government.

Similarly to LovesLife, I can't tell if you're advocating competing governments, or something like that. In which case, it's quite important that the government has a legal monopoly on the regulation of the use of force. As to why, I'll just quote the third entry of the Lexicon article for Anarchy: ''Suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.''

The logical heirarchy for why there should be a government is pretty simple: men have rights, and in order to live in a civilized society, they must be recognized; in order for there to be objective law protecting individual rights, there has to be an organization with a legal monopoly on the use of force to define and enforce objective laws, while limiting itself to only those actions through police, courts, and military.

I'm not even going to pretend to know what the heirarchy is that justifies anarcho-capitalism.

Ok, fair enough. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

What is still unclear is how large( geographically )the governments should be. Do you agree with federal governments?

Also, are we talking career military or more militia-type forces? Because, to be honest, while standing militaries may be better for protection, don't you think they are easily exploited?

Thanks for welcoming me to the community :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The specifics of the implementation leave the realm of philosophy. Philosophically, what's important isn't how it's implemented, but that it is implemented morally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same understanding of minarchy, but you are still using compulsion as a means to freedom, even if it is only police, courts, and military. "Do this the way we want, or we will punish you. The way we want is right though, see all the benefits?" If you agree with 99% of the laws, you still object to the 1% that someone is holding over your head. Now, if it is justified or not is debatable. Centralizing violence just seems dangerous to me.

What you've described sounds arbitrary. Government shouldn't be arbitrary. The main purpose of government should be to protect your rights, which in turn requires the use of objective laws.

Governments (or government-like agencies) must use compulsion (force), but only in retaliation, not as an initiator. This is true for them for the same reasons it's true for you as an individual. If you act violently toward me, then I have the right to use compulsion to make you stop.

By organizations I do mean government-like agencies not funded by taxes, but through contracts. I hate to get into concrete examples because it is hard for a single person to predict how anarchy would work. I might not be able to find a solution to a problem the free market would normally fix. This makes it very abstract, and it seems better to argue with ethics.

It seems unethical to me, in any case, to force someone to pay for anything without their consent.

Maybe the solution is to mix anarchy with minarchy? Regions of anarchy near regions of minarchy?

A proper government should be voluntarily funded.

One of many problems with government-like agencies is how would you resolve conflicts between them? What if they disagree on some very basic premise?

Another problem is that in order for the multiple agency approach to work, you're assuming that people are basically good. But what if a gang forms? Then it's the most violent group that wins, not the one determined by the market.

Here's a link to a more detailed Objectivist argument against anarchy:

http://www.hblist.com/anarchy.htm

Edited by LovesLife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your traffic light argument is not very helpful to clear up any disagreements because it's not quite clear what you mean, or what the disagreement stems from. What similarities is the metaphor supposed to point to? What do you mean just look before crossing the street? Is Objectivism against looking before crossing the street? Does the theory of anarchy deny that there should be any traffic lights? Obviously not on both accounts, so what in the world is this argument telling us?

But it seems rather a misunderstanding of Toohey's point, and of Rand's point. What Toohey is doing is presenting the old "traffic lights, ergo collectivism" argument, which Rand is disagreeing with as a glaring non sequitur. Rand's argument for limited government was never "you need to be coerced to be free." Where in the world did you get this from? Can you cite the work and page number for this? Obviously, you won't be able to. You state that people should be "able to use reason in determining which organizations are vital to their well-being, and to fund these themselves, as opposed to being coerced into paying for them." Very well, it would seem Rand agrees with this statement. There seems to be a misunderstanding that Rand was for coercive government that funds itself by means of taxation, but this is evidently false. Thus Rand:

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for

governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a

government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are

demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly,

the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they

pay for insurance.

(Cf. The Virtue of Selfishness, chapter 15 "Government Financing in a Free Society" p. 135)

So why don't you maybe start out by explaining what in Rand's varaious essays for limited government you find objectionable or mistaken and we can go from there? It's hard to do it the other way around because we don't know what particular brand of anarchy you support, and the arguments you have given thus far are unhelpful for clarifying anything as shown above. All we can really say is something in general against anarcho-capitalism such as: Objectivism is against the arbitrary use of force, only a particular kind of organization should use retaliatory force, ergo a limited government operating under a suitable legal constitution to protect individual rights.

Also, this topic has been beaten to death in these forums and there are several threads already with tons of information and arguments already presented, so consider using the search function (or do a site search via Google, e.g. site:forum.objectivismonline.net anarchy) to find the answers to your question already posted. Here's a good thread pinpointing some disagreement with Rothbard's particular brand of anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read everything in this thread, but perhaps the following article will help shed some lignt on the issue. It is quite good and may raise some points/answer questons/dispell objections in a way not covered so far ( and it specifically mentions anarcho-capitalism and how they are in fact statists in at least one respect, but read for yourself to try to find out why this is so ):

http://www.hblist.com/anarchy.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Mod's note: merged with existing topic. - sN ***

It is a well known fact that Ayn Rand was strongly advocating against anarchism, anarcho capitalism and libertarianism I however find her arguments for government lacking. I do not claim that she was wrong, but I do claim that she didn't justifie her claims properly.

http://aynrandlexico...government.html

The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. This distinction is so important and so seldom recognized today that I must urge you to keep it in mind. Let me repeat it: a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.

That's very nice and dandy, but what makes this monopoly legal? Democracy?

You can chose to vote or not to vote, but in the end you are forced to abide by the law regardless whether that law is right or not regardless whether you agree with the law or not and regardless whether you have done anything wrong or not. You have no choice in choosing your government or not choosing any at all.

The government is forced upon the individual violating his rights even if the person had not done anything wrong to deserve such action (violating one's rights can only be righteous as punishment for criminal activity). What makes the kind of government we have today legal is not the consent of the governed but force.

Remember that:

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

So government by definition has to defend man's rights but it's very existence violates their rights. That is the harsh truth of reality.

The question is: Can the government force its own (non competitive) service on people because government is the only entity capable and with the legality to use force?

Just because the government has a legal right to use force doesn't mean it can force whatever it wants on innocent people and that probably includes forcing itself on others as well.

After all force is only right against someone who has violated a human right, but what did the child who has just been born commit against any law?

Rand's argument rests on the premise ( assumption ) that the free market cannot provide a government i.e. a monopoly on force that is meant to protect individual rights.

What makes the services of the government different from any other service the marketplace has to offer?

Why is force unique in this regard? Rand does not explain why the free market through voluntary compliance cannot create such an entity. Wouldn't that and that alone could give legality to the government?

Governments legality today rely on tradition and force and not on the consent of the people... it relies on the two things that cannot be justified by Objectivism.

Can the free market provide a monopoly on force?

Most people fear that if the legal use of force is given to the markets it would create chaos and violence, but is that really true?

Isn't society compromised of individuals with rational self interest who can realize the benefits of a government?

Is the problem that free markets can't create monopolies without government help? That is true, but not exactly. There have been many monopolies and are in existence today created by the free market!

One example would be: W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) that has a monopoly on regulating web standards like html and css. A different group ECMA International regulates javascript.

How can it be that these non profit organizations became monopolies?

Because there are multiple browsers any one browser manufacturer who does not follow the regulations will loose a considerable market share because webpages will work in other browsers but not in theirs. Not even Microsoft's Internet Explorer that had a monopoly for a short while after the death of Netscape could have survived if they didn't start to follow regulations after the rise of Firefox and other free browsers. So the regulations aren't enforced by the law but by the market!

Who pays the W3C and ECMA? Everyone who has an interest in the development of the Internet: Microsoft, Apple, mobile phone companies, HP, IBM etc... These often competing companies realized that it is in their benefit to standardize the web and give better services to the users.

In this setup everyone the user, the browser vendors the regulators participate by their own free will and as a result they have created a monopoly without using force.

If the free market could provide this system can it not provide a government as well?

The regulations of W3C are like the laws of the government. They are rules based on rationality and the needs of the people!

Everyone could participate in lawmaking for a price, but everyone who had one vote regardless of participating or not. This is where parties could be formed to maximize efficiency.

The browser vendors and Internet Service Providers are like the police force and judicial systems of the government.

If they did not follow the law they would loose customers and the other police companies would take them out if they used force on the individuals who had a contract with a different company.

So it is quite possible for the free market compromised of individuals armed with rational self interest to create a voluntary government.

Maybe we do not need a monopoly on force, but rather a monopoly on the law by which the force should be used and that is quite possible to achieve in a free market system.

So how can objectivists argue for a government that's legality comes from force?

If the free market cannot provide the people with a government than objectivists must tell the people why it is impossible even though it can provide everything else.

Peace!

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how can objectivists argue for a government that's legality comes from force?
I've merged your post into a related topic. This question comes up all the time, so if you use search you should find other such topics too.

Bonus: here's something from Harry Binswanger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah well I was hoping it would not be merged :mellow:

It took me a while to get all these things together.... :closedeyes:

Please can I have my topic back? Please :santa:

Edited by Dániel Boros

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah well I was hoping it would not be merged :mellow:

It took me a while to get all these things together.... :closedeyes:

It took much longer for the contributors to this thread to provide intelligent and sometimes even brilliant answers to every single issue you raised.

Why would you want us all to just ignore all that effort, and start fresh with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

I presented an argument that I have not yet seen here.

I have read the document you've linked and the others as well.

Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by the police, the leader of the band announces: "Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us." According to the "libertarian" anarchists, in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade.

This is a Straw Man... The writer assumes that even though there are multiple groups that use force it also assumes there are multiple laws for each group.

If the groups used different laws the local police would not be obliged to move.

With this logic free markets would not work either. Imagine a shopkeeper that doesn't want to use money to trade how could an economy survive if such a thing was allowed. That is why trade must be regulated by the government...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The writer assumes that even though there are multiple groups that use force it also assumes there are multiple laws for each group.

No, he doesn't. He assumes that different groups have different understandings of what justice is, in a particular case.

That happens today as well, even though there is only one law. Luckily, we have an objective justice system to sort it all out.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it assumes that in a anarcho capitalist society there would be no objective justice system to sort things out.

That's like assuming there would be no railways or roads if the government didn't monopolize them.

I gave a factual case of how it works this in real free market situation.

Its there its real it works.

If that is not more than the others offered..well too bad.

I read the topic and I am not satisfied at all.

I see the same assumptions over and over again leading to the same never happened cases again and again.

Why would you want us all to just ignore all that effort, and start fresh with you?

Because than someone would read my post.

Edited by Dániel Boros

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why anarcho-capitalism can't have an "Objective Justice System" is that there are many fundemental questions for issues of justice that do not have obvious answers to them.

To name a few; Children? Pets? Owning water and the ocean? Corporations? Intellectual Property?

And most importantly, what is due process?

We need one answer to those questions otherwise every court case becomes a political hay day between different grouos attempting to provide law.

Anyone who recognizes the rights of ofther individuals has to realize that a system to enforce those rights must be formed. The advantage of this system is that it doesn't change often and everyone knows exactly what it does ahead of time. In the United States if you are arrested there is a process that you can expect and rights that must be respected in order for you to be tried for a crime. Other countries have other opinions of them. If I go to Japan, I can read up on their ideas of due process and then decide if it is worth to go there at all. However the thing is that I pretty much know what I am getting into ahead of time based on location.

Market Anarchism could never provide that. Due process would be a mess simply because of the variety of opinons any reasonable person or business could have on the matter. Its not like getting 70% of the population to agree with property rights, it like getting 70% of the populaiton to agree with a specific kind of court procedure, a specific kind of way of reading rights, a specific way of handling child welfare and custody etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it assumes that in a anarcho capitalist society there would be no objective justice system to sort things out.

That's like assuming there would be no railways or roads if the government didn't monopolize them.

No, it's not like that at all. One is based on the use of force to apprehend and jail criminals, the other is based on voluntary agreements between market participants.

This exact point, btw., is made by David Odden in post #25.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before that's an obvious straw man.

Nobody is enforcing competing browser manufacturers to use the W3C standards and yet they all abide by it. Why? Because they have a rational self interest to use the same standard as everyone else uses.

Why is that different from how the government would work in a free market? Why is one possible and the other not?

Do not people have a rational self interest in a just and fair law? If you can prove that isn't true I will accept that anarcho capitalism is wrong and that society would degrade into a group of cave people.

Otherwise you must prove that even though people have a rational self interest to have a government a free society cannot provide it because a government-less market lacks the kind of environment necessary to provide such a thing.

So even though the environment is good enough to create a government through force it isn't possible to create a government through voluntary compliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The linked HB article above handles this topic comprehensively (I was finding myself reverse-engineering his article until I read it).

Is it possible you can re-form your arguments as an answer to that article? As I agree 100% with that article and probably many here do as well, it would save us all a lot of time if we could use that as a starting point...

So what, within Harry's argument, is mistaken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is enforcing competing browser manufacturers to use the W3C standards and yet they all abide by it. Why?

Well, the successful browsers abide by that standard, and the reason is that the ones that don't fail. The reason why they fail is, once again, the fact that they are not allowed to use force to back their marketing campaign. When they are allowed to use force, they don't fail.

Once again, that is the crucial difference between a commercial enterprise and an agent of justice: an agent of justice can and must use force. Expecting criminals to voluntarily abide by its rulings is absurd. Therefor there need to be other limits on its power, besides market competition based on the voluntary nature of market participation. Those other limits are the checks and balances of a constitutional republic, including the democratic process.

It's very odd, by the way, that in the other thread you cite the US Constitution for every claim you make, and in this one the Constitution is the first thing you want to get rid of. I guess that's one of those obvious contradictions you mentioned you have, that you should work on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before that's an obvious straw man.

Nobody is enforcing competing browser manufacturers to use the W3C standards and yet they all abide by it. Why? Because they have a rational self interest to use the same standard as everyone else uses.

Why is that different from how the government would work in a free market? Why is one possible and the other not?

Do not people have a rational self interest in a just and fair law? If you can prove that isn't true I will accept that anarcho capitalism is wrong and that society would degrade into a group of cave people.

Otherwise you must prove that even though people have a rational self interest to have a government a free society cannot provide it because a government-less market lacks the kind of environment necessary to provide such a thing.

So even though the environment is good enough to create a government through force it isn't possible to create a government through voluntary compliance.

People do have an interest in "just and fair law". However, as I said above there is not any clear indication of what this means for certain groups. Issues such as due process and the rights of children are very fundemental and can be controversial among rational people, or at least people who support capitalism. It is easy to point to a single standard which an industry agrees on, however I can easily point to industries in which multiple standards and products are used.

Another issue is the fact that this puts the cart before the horse. That is, how can a market produce such fundemental laws if those laws are not already in place? The very frame work of the market is determined ahead of time by aspects ot the law. WIthout that standard business becomes a risky political affair.

If we look at international business that is exactly what happens. Trade between individuals of different nations is wholly defined by treaties between the law makers in those countries.

That is just trade also, we haven't gotten to the issue of due process and child custody, both of which are important but which can be extremely harmed by two conflicting legal systems coming into play at the same time.

Edited by Hairnet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People do have an interest in "just and fair law". However, as I said above there is not any clear indication of what this means for certain groups. Issues such as due process and the rights of children are very fundemental and can be controversial among rational people, or at least people who support capitalism. It is easy to point to a single standard which an industry agrees on, however I can easily point to industries in which multiple standards and products are used.

Please do point me to an industry. I would argue that any industry that doesn't use a universal standard would not benefit from a universal standard.

Another issue is the fact that this puts the cart before the horse. That is, how can a market produce such fundemental laws if those laws are not already in place? The very frame work of the market is determined ahead of time by aspects ot the law. WIthout that standard business becomes a risky political affair.

Markets work with or without government. The framework of the market is not based on law only the details are. The market is based on people, trust and profits.

If we look at international business that is exactly what happens. Trade between individuals of different nations is wholly defined by treaties between the law makers in those countries.

And that is a bad thing? Governments aren't business organizations after all. They don't have a strong incentive to make just and fair laws or laws that benefit the people. After all they are a monopoly are they not?

That is just trade also, we haven't gotten to the issue of due process and child custody, both of which are important but which can be extremely harmed by two conflicting legal systems coming into play at the same time.

Yes that is why people would benefit from a universal legal system and that is also why the legal system itself doesn't need to be provided by force.

Well, the successful browsers abide by that standard, and the reason is that the ones that don't fail. The reason why they fail is, once again, the fact that they are not allowed to use force to back their marketing campaign. When they are allowed to use force, they don't fail.

That is not entirely accurate. They can't use force to drive out competition and they can't force their product on people.

The way crony capitalism works is by giving monopoly to producers and not by directly forcing people. The former is effective.. the later not so much.

Even in a anarcho capitalist society one group could not force a competitor out of business by force at least it would not be very profitable and rational.

In our society the only thing one can do against the mafia is call the cops. In other words use one group the one you prefer the one you choose against the other.

Once again, that is the crucial difference between a commercial enterprise and an agent of justice: an agent of justice can and must use force. Expecting criminals to voluntarily abide by its rulings is absurd.

Indeed criminals by definition don't abide by the rules.

Therefor there need to be other limits on its power, besides market competition based on the voluntary nature of market participation. Those other limits are the checks and balances of a constitutional republic, including the democratic process.

Those things are quite normal and basic in the business World.

It's very odd, by the way, that in the other thread you cite the US Constitution for every claim you make, and in this one the Constitution is the first thing you want to get rid of. I guess that's one of those obvious contradictions you mentioned you have, that you should work on.

When I said I contradicted myself it was about Amway being a religion or not. First I said it was than I said it was not because Amway was not really teaching morality even though it used the methods of a religion.

I don't know what I said about the constitution but it should be very obvious that I am for the constitution and for the rule of law.

I merely suggest that everything we call government can be provided without using coercion and force on innocent people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what I said about the constitution but it should be very obvious that I am for the constitution and for the rule of law.

Have you read the US Constitution? It contradicts everything you wrote in this thread. The Constitution is a framework for the US government, as the institution which has a monopoly on justice and retaliatory force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Digital distribtion. Mass Effect 3 is now being provided on a new digital distribution program called Origin. All EA games are being provided on this now instead of the vastly superior steam. However because of fighting between the groups a major part of the market is now asking people to download an inferior (and harmful by my estimation) program. The industry was fine with steam being the provider of digital distribution, in fact, it was very useful that I could get almost any game on my computer with one account.

2. What you are calling a market has always existed and always will. People making deals is older than dirt. If this was enough to produce a just system of laws the human race wouldn't have had to go through 150,000 years of sociological and political developmen. Well meaning, trustworthy people, who also seek profits can end up contesting all sorts of fundemental legal issues with one anothe.

3. My point is that groups of people who can not agree on the same laws have treaties not contracts. With that no assumptions can be made and it makes life extremely difficult for people.

4. Just because universal laws need to be made that does not mean "the market" will make them. There isn't any reason to believe why something close to consensus would be produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give a brief reply which I may elaborate on later. The fundamental argument which most people on here seem to be relying on -- and which Harry Binswanger is relying on his article -- is that objective law and due process cannot exist unless it is established by a government. And there's another argument which people are making, which is that armed conflict would be an option which people would willingly resort to in a free market, and that enough people would choose this as recourse that society would be destabilized.

 

To answer the first argument, my view is that an objective system of law could exist based on custom, particularly if society is largely composed of rational individuals. I would further argue that this would provide a better basis for maintaining objective law than entrusting this power to a institution with the exclusive right to wield force, because in the latter case the institution has the power to subvert the law, and the individuals in power have an incentive to do this in order to gain support from special interests.

 

Even if different security agencies had different laws, they could still establish treaties in order to avoid conflict, just like governments do now. It is likely, under this arrangement, that most defense agencies would form a federation with laws and procedures to ensure peace. (Actually, this would likely happen anyway, since agencies would have an incentive to pool their resources for military protection against invaders.) Any agency which refused to join or sign a peace agreement with the federation would be at greater risk.

 

As far as the second point, waging a war costs a lot of money, and as a result it's economically inefficient to start a war of aggression. A government can get away with this, because it has the right to expropriate wealth from its subjects, and can raise taxes as much as it likes. If a rogue agency tries to raise its prices in order to get the funds to fight a war of aggression, it will lose its customer base pretty quickly.

 

I also don't know how well a voluntarily funded minarchist state would work, because a lot of people would just start mooching off the benefits of police and military protection without contributing anything. Just like happens under communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the second point, waging a war costs a lot of money, and as a result it's economically inefficient to start a war of aggression. A government can get away with this, because it has the right to expropriate wealth from its subjects, and can raise taxes as much as it likes. If a rogue agency tries to raise its prices in order to get the funds to fight a war of aggression, it will lose its customer base pretty quickly.

What if that rogue agency instituted a law that states that its customer base is not allowed to leave? At that point, any agency which would protect people who live, would risk going to war. As you just explained, they wouldn't do that. 

 

So that customer base would be left entirely at the mercy of that rogue agency. In fact, everyone would be left at the mercy of their own agencies, because, just like in capitalism, competing companies would do everything in their power to keep their customer base. 

 

The difference is, in anarchy, unlike in capitalism, using force would be within these agencies power too. They would exercise that power to not allow their customer base to depart. These agencies would operate the same way protection rackets operate today, except there would be no one to arrest them for it. It wouldn't even be illegal.

 

Even if different security agencies had different laws, they could still establish treaties in order to avoid conflict, just like governments do now. It is likely, under this arrangement, that most defense agencies would form a federation with laws and procedures to ensure peace. (Actually, this would likely happen anyway, since agencies would have an incentive to pool their resources for military protection against invaders.) Any agency which refused to join or sign a peace agreement with the federation would be at greater risk.

At greater risk of what? Why would such a "federation" even allow any agency to refuse to sign? There would be no rule against this federation simply forcing everyone to sign. Thus making this federation into a dictatorial government, run by oligarchs.

 

What is the assumption that this federation is more likely to play by some unwritten rules than a democratically elected government is to play by the written rules of its Constitution, based on? History shows that the opposite is true, and that the democratically elected, constitutionally bound governments tend to be the least oppressive. 

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×