Eamon Arasbard

At this point we're just debating semantics. The reason I would consider this arrangement a form of anarchy is because no one would have the right to force me to adopt any system of political authority against my will. I would have the right to choose my defense agency, or government if you will, and no one would be my ruler, because their own authority over me would by my choice as a sovereign individual. Nicky has also raised a legitimate point about nuclear weapons. While I believe that it is in the rational self-interest of every nation to abolish nuclear weapons, there is the practical issue of how to do this, and if we replace the current system with an anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist system, then there would be the question of who should control the nukes. Maybe a treaty between whatever private defense agencies or military federations emerged to jointly control the nukes, possibly including a reformed U.S. government with an Objectivist constitution?

In that case, Eiuol, we are 100% in agreement on the political issues involved. And, if such a system actually existed, I would likely advance my case for secession, while you would advance your case for remaining part of the United States, and individuals would choose their options based on the rational arguments for both sides. The law would be accepted by all rational individuals. Hopefully this would be a majority, but if not, then democracy wouldn't work either. I suppose they would be written by whoever could construct a theory of law based on rational philosophical principles. If it was legitimate, then it would be morally right for the masses to accept it. Otherwise, we would be morally justified in ignoring them, and anyone would have a right to establish a new code of laws, as long as it was based on objective principles. The power to apprehend anyone if there was probable cause to think they were a criminal. Just like the power granted to the police under the U.S. Constitution. In practice this would mean asking their defense agency to turn them over. If two people were part of the same defense agency, their case would arbitrated according to the rules of the defense agency. And if someone didn't like the rules, they would have the right to move to a different agency. If they were part of different defense agencies, then their agencies would negotiate to ensure fair proceedings. In that case, again, people would buy an emergency insurance policy in case their defense agency turned against them, and they needed to pay another agency the extra premium for protecting them. I personally believe that nuclear weapons are immoral to begin with, since they are intended to kill large numbers of people indiscriminately, and my position as a result of this is that we are justified in using force to prevent anyone from developing nuclear weapons. I know that Rand did not accept the premise that killing civilians in a war was a violation of the NAP, but I don't think her arguments for the contrary position are applicable in this case, because if a bunch of Muslims are able to form a private defense agency, then that already means that they are living in an anarchist society, and other defense agencies would have a right to confiscate their nukes. And if they're living in an enemy nation-state, and this state is a dictatorship (Which it presumably would be if it was ruled by Muslim fundamentalists), then we would be justified in wiping them off the map if they became a threat.

The law could either be a constitution which would be written once, then remain constant, and dictate terms for resolving all future disputes without resorting to legislation, or a set of social customs based on objective principles, which would be commonly accepted as absolute. It might even be somewhere in between, with a set of pre-existing social rules codified on paper for everyone's convenience. But they would be unchangeable. If someone tried to re-write the laws, and the new version was unjust, then these laws would be dismissed as illegitimate. If the new laws were just, they would still be dismissed as unnecessary, because a just set of laws would already exist. Everyone would have the power to enforce the law, as long as they followed the rules of due process. The person's new defense agency would have a contractual obligation to protect them. And it would be completely impractical for someone to use this policy, because again, as soon as they tried that they would face retaliation from that person's defense agency, and likely others who saw it to be in their interests to crush them. Not necessary. Private property can also mean joint ownership by multiple individuals, and there's nothing stopping a bunch of people signing a contract establishing common ownership over a defense agency's resources, enforced by whatever organizational procedures are established in the contract. That already happens in many countries with a state. Having competing agencies would make this less of a risk, because people would be free to leave any time they wanted. Yes, I should have been more specific. I want to have the right to withdraw allegiance to the U.S. government, given its current practices. You are making a good point. I'll have to think about it, and bring it up with some of my ancap friends to see what their thoughts are.

I agree with you on all of this, in terms of the political rights implied. What if my defense agency objects to the procedure used by the government to justify arresting me? If the government has acted unjustly (For instance, by using an improper procedure to obtain an arrest warrant), does my agency have a right to treat my arrest as an act of aggression? And, assuming my agency is willing to turn me over if there is probable cause that I have committed a crime, would you object to the government working with my agency to secure my arrest? Edited to add: In reply to your point about it being irrational to join a competing agency, I would agree if the United States government currently fuctioned as the Founding Fathers intended, and remained the most powerful force in the territory. Under present circumstances, however, I would much prefer to do business with a different entity.

What would be the incentive for anyone (Other than maybe a few fanatics) to spend the money to support an agency which would use force to impose tyranny on their neighbors, given the added cost that they'd have to pay for perpetual warfare? And as for the people who would be willing to spend this money, they would be few enough that they could be easily crushed.

That would be perfectly fine. As you said, if someone doesn't like it, they can leave. I have considered this system before, and there are arguments for it. However, giving the legislature itself the authority to hold a monopoly on the use of force will always end badly. And even under the system you propose, there is still the possibility that a majority of the people could elect a government which would subvert the constitution in a way which would benefit them at the expense of a minority. (For instance, a faction could decide, as some left-anarchists believe, that private property is illegitimate, and that as a result using force to defend private property is a violation of the NAP -- whereas eithout the existence of a single legislative authority, the minority would still have recourse through their private defense agencies, which protect their rights using force, if necessary.)

Well, for one thing, it would not be legal for an agency to do this. Their customers would be bound by nothing except a voluntary contract, which they would have a right to terminate at will. Using force to prevent them from leaving would be an act of aggression. I don't think it would be practical for an agency to declare war on another agency just to reclaim its former customer base. As long as every one of their former members knew their rights, there would be enough of them leaving to make it impractical to use force to keep all of them. Especially since they would all likely be going to different agencies, meaning that in order to use this tactic a rogue agency would have to declare unilateral war on literally every other agency in existence. And they wouldn't last very long. Even if this did become a credible threat, the worst case scenario would be that refugees fleeing from rogue agencies would have to pay higher premiums, and in this a market would emerge in insurance programs to cover this risk. Only if the members of the federation are willing to pay the cost of fighting a war of aggression. And even if this did become a credible threat, agencies that wanted to remain free would have a right to form an alliance of their own, and customers would be free to do business whichever faction they believed was most likely to protect their freedom. Why couldn't the leaders of the agencies be elected by its consumers, if that became a concern? Plus a free market in provision of justice would essentially be a de facto democracy anyway, since people would be free to vote with their dollars, just like in any free market.

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.