TANSTAAFL

[Fred Weiss]

I believe you have answered your own question, Fred.  If a warlord has a monopoly, there is by definition no competition and therefore no free market in protection services.  If you think that "good ol' anarchism" means winning a battle and taking over the protection racket in an area, then you must believe that the United States is an example of anarchism.  For taking over the protection racket is precisely what the U.S. did after winning battles against Indians, Mexicans and Southerners.

Charlotte, you are being deliberately dense. What prompted this comparison was your question, "Where is the proof that a monopoly in protection services must necessarily provide better safeguards of the rights of the accused than a set of competing protection agencies?" Then when I cite the Sudan you declare, "Oh, those aren't "competing protecting agencies" because they are using force. Tell us how an "agency" protects unless it can use force? And what happens when two (or more) of these "agencies" are in conflict? How is it resolved unless there is some authority which can render a final verdict and enforce it, i.e use force to impliment its decision?

The relevance of the Sudan - or similar situations - is that you don't have a single entity enforcing a single body of law. You have multiple warlords, i.e. "competing protecting agencies", each enforcing their own version of the law, each in effect being a law unto themselves, thus producing not some pseudo elevated notion of freedom but the exact opposite: the compete breakdown of law and the wholesale violation of rights.

And that is the inherent contradiction in anarchism.

Fred Weiss

[DavidOdden]

The relevance of the Sudan - or similar situations - is that you don't have a single entity enforcing a single body of law. You have multiple warlords, i.e. "competing protecting agencies", each enforcing their own version of the law, each in effect being a law unto themselves, thus producing not some pseudo elevated notion of freedom but the exact opposite: the compete breakdown of law and the wholesale violation of rights.

This is the fundamental point. As Rand says,

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

This is something that I've come to appreciate better, after some time digging into issues of law, rights and Objectivism. It is not instantly self-evident exactly what those law should be, it is not naturally out there for all to see what the standards of proof should be. It is mysticism to believe that justice can emerge ex nihilo in a society that has no clear rules saying what is right vs. wrong conduct.

[Charlotte Corday]

Charlotte, you are being deliberately dense. What prompted this comparison was your question, "Where is the proof that a monopoly in protection services must necessarily provide better safeguards of the rights of the accused than a set of competing protection agencies?" Then when I cite the Sudan you declare, "Oh, those aren't "competing protecting agencies" because they are using force.

You have a free market in defense when no one is prevented by force from offering protection and criminal justice services. If you are submitting Sudan as an example of a free market in defense, you will have to overcome the overwhelming evidence that the junta in Khartoum has a policy of vigorously suppressing any and all rivals.

Tell us how an "agency" protects unless it can use force?

No advocate for free market anarchism has ever suggested a prohibition on defensive force. The crux of the debate is whether a group of people calling themselves “the government” may rightfully use force against a person or persons who are providing their own defense and criminal justice services. Violence or the threat of violence to prohibit a non-aggressive activity is the initiation of force. A monopoloy government to protect rights is therefore a contradiction.

And what happens when two (or more) of these "agencies" are in conflict? How is it resolved unless there is some authority which can render a final verdict and enforce it, i.e use force to impliment its decision?

What happens when your car is stolen by a Canadian citizen who drives it back to his home in Montreal? Since the U.S. and Canada are sovereign and independent states with no higher master, must they go to war over your Lexus, Fred?

The relevance of the Sudan - or similar situations - is that you don't have a single entity enforcing a single body of law. You have multiple warlords, i.e. "competing protecting agencies", each enforcing their own version of the law, each in effect being a law unto themselves, thus producing not some pseudo elevated notion of freedom but the exact opposite: the compete breakdown of law and the wholesale violation of rights. And that is the inherent contradiction in anarchism.

Well, speaking as one who has visited the Sudan, I can tell you that your account is completely inaccurate and amounts to nothing other than a strawman. There are no competing protection agencies in Khartoum. There is one monopoly government, which enforces its sovereignty with a vicious thoroughness. Does the Khartoum junta have undisputed authority throughout the territory it claims? No, but neither do Moscow, Baghdad, Kabul and Bogota. Would it be appropriate to offer those government as examples of anarchism in practice? And what about the United States, 1861-1865? Was that too anarchism?

[Charlotte Corday]

This is something that I've come to appreciate better, after some time digging into issues of law, rights and Objectivism. It is not instantly self-evident exactly what those law should be, it is not naturally out there for all to see what the standards of proof should be. It is mysticism to believe that justice can emerge ex nihilo in a society that has no clear rules saying what is right vs. wrong conduct.

But I do not know of anyone who believes that “that justice can emerge ex nihilo.” Most proponents of market anarchism readily agree that there are certain cultural preconditions to the laissez faire society. Murray N. Rothbard devoted himself frequently to that topic in his last years. In any case, why does the existence of the state make the discovery of what the law should be any easier? If anything, by prohibiting all rivals the state would tend to foster the perpetuation of bad laws.

[Charlotte Corday]

As I just indicated, this is a non-issue. You seem to be . . .

I think most of your points are answered in my response to Fred Weiss. But I will make a comment or two:

Sudan was held up by Weiss as an example of a free market in competing defense agencies. But, as I have said elsewhere, all evidence is to the contrary. Sudan, like every other government, forcibly prohibits any agency outside its regime from offering defense/criminal justice services. The fact that it is less successful in doing this in its southern regions than in its northern regions is not evidence of a market in competition, but of a war between two or more governments for the same turf. No party asserting its right to rule there has promised not to interfere if a company down the street sets up defense/criminal justice services. Thus, if Sudan is entered as an example of anarchism in practice, we may absurdly cite the U.S. of 1861-65 and France of 1940-45 as other examples of anarchism.

Regarding the terms “monopoly” and “total control”: I have shown that the inability of a state to exercise total control over its territory is irrelevant to the issue of whether free market anarchism is present in a country. The fact that Sudan cannot collect taxes in its southern provinces has nothing to do with whether or not those who wish to offer defense/criminal justice services can freely enter the market. If they can, then there is anarcho-capitalism. But no where have I seen evidence that this is the case.

[DavidOdden]

In any case, why does the existence of the state make the discovery of what the law should be any easier?  If anything, by prohibiting all rivals the state would tend to foster the perpetuation of bad laws.

That is not the point. The monopoly state allows you to know what the law actually is. Whereas, if laws can be made up on the spot and justified post hoc (after you've sent your goons to steal back some property that you claim is yours), then you don't have a system of justice, you have a might-makes-right society that is based on influence-peddling.

In response to your Canada example, the answer is that if you live in Canada, you are subject to Canadian law -- and we know what Canadian law is. If you live in the US you are subject to US law -- again, we know what that is. If you violate a US law (theft, for example) and abscond to Canada, you'll run into the inconvenient fact that there is a Canadian law requiring them to honor a legal arrest warrant from the US, at least for theft (and any other obvious crimes). So for each nation, there is a single knowable, unique set of rules: if you are in the US, you are subject to US law; if you are in Canada, you are subject to Canadian law. Whereas under your version of government, the rules are determined ad hoc by each defensive agency (this is your golden opportunity to publically clean up your position, if you'd care to). How is a person supposed to know what the law is? Are they subject to only the laws of their defense agency? Or those of some other person whom they interact with?

The problem of bad laws has nothing to do with the monopoly on law, it has to do with a poor philosophical foundation for law. Laws allowing taxation exist because they are allowed to exist, and are not constitutionally prohibited. Obviously, the question of whether the "two-witness" rule should be in terms of two vs. one vs. three witnesses is not a foundational issue for a proper constitution; it's a kind of arbitrary balance between the reigning in the awesome power of the state vs. making it unconscionably difficult to obtain a conviction. The nature of the penalty for rights violation is bounded by law: you cannot claim 10-fold damages, under US law. If these matters are decided by the individual agency, I can tell yo that my agency will go to war against your agency if they try to collect anything more than treble damages. The duration of copyright can't be automatically computed by some formula: you need to make a decision, and say "This is what it is". As the creator of a work, I would naturally seek thugs who would enforce my claim for the longest time possible, and who would especially enforce punitive damages going to me -- whereas as a user of such a work, I would seek a gang of thugs who would enforce the shortest duration copyright claim to a work, so that I can avoid paying royalties.

[Charlotte Corday]

That is not the point. The monopoly state allows you to know what the law actually is. Whereas, if laws can be made up on the spot and justified post hoc . . .

But surely the fact that the federal government does not pay attention to its own 2nd Amendment limitation puts paid to the idea that there is never any uncertainty about what federal law is. Have you never heard of Anti-Trust and the “ten thousand commandments”? Have you never heard of ad hoc bureaucratic rulings by OSHA, the EPA, the BATF, the TSA and even the Post Office?

In response to your Canada example, the answer is that if you live in Canada, you are subject to Canadian law -- and we know what Canadian law is. If you live in the US you are subject to US law -- again, we know what that is. If you violate a US law . . .

But it is far from certain that private protection agencies would be wills of the wisp. I’ve never known a subscriber to a private security patrol to be told by the hot-line, “Sorry, ma’am, as of yesterday we don’t respond to home invasions.” On the other hand, I have heard of homeowners who had to wait days for the local (monopoly) police to respond to a burglary report. There is nothing in the nature of government that makes its rules more certain or knowable than those of private industry. In fact, anyone with experience with both private industry and government will likely confirm that the government is far more likely to be inconsistent, two-faced and indecipherable.

The problem of bad laws has nothing to do with the monopoly on law, it has to do with a poor philosophical foundation for law. Laws allowing taxation exist because they are allowed to exist, and are not constitutionally prohibited.

Next, I suppose, you’ll tell me that federal laws banning certain weapons exist because such laws are not constitutionally prohibited.

If these matters are decided by the individual agency, I can tell yo that my agency will go to war against your agency if they try to collect anything more than treble damages.

What a curious view of entrepreneurship! A profit-making company would rather exhaust its resources in a war rather than work out a compromise?

The duration of copyright can't be automatically computed by some formula: you need to make a decision, and say "This is what it is". As the creator of a work, I would naturally seek thugs who would enforce my claim for the longest time possible, and who would especially enforce punitive damages going to me -- whereas as a user of such a work, I would seek a gang of thugs who would enforce the shortest duration copyright claim to a work, so that I can avoid paying royalties.

Yes, if one were very, very stupid he might hire a $5 per hour thug to break into a home to collect $6 in royalties from a kid who illegally downloaded a CD.

[DavidOdden]

But surely the fact that the federal government does not pay attention to its own 2nd Amendment limitation puts paid to the idea that there is never any uncertainty about what federal law is.

I don't think so, I think it simply shows the problem inherent in the rule of man as opposed to the rule of law. You may have noticed, if you've read some of my posts, that I havn't claimed that the current federal law is "certain" -- it's rather uncertain and getting more and more subjective. My objection is to your implicit position that all law should be subjective.

Writing the law down does not mean that it will be enforced. The problem is that the rules of interpretation are not made objective and unique, and thus we actually have quite a number of legal systems comingling. The problem you are referring to is precisely the lack of monopoly in the law. Justice Scalia has it right, and Justice Breyer has it wrong. As I've argued elsewhere here, these issues should be part of the Constitution.

Have you never heard of Anti-Trust and the “ten thousand commandments”?  Have you never heard of ad hoc bureaucratic rulings by OSHA, the EPA, the BATF, the TSA and even the Post Office?

I haven't heard of the ten thousand commandments, but I can imagine what it is. What's your point? Let me repeat for the millionth time: objective codification of a law is a necessary condition for protection of rights, but it is not sufficient.

But it is far from certain that private protection agencies would be wills of the wisp.  I’ve never known a subscriber to a private security patrol to be told by the hot-line, “Sorry, ma’am, as of yesterday we don’t respond to home invasions.”  On the other hand, I have heard of homeowners who had to wait days for the local (monopoly) police to respond to a burglary report.

Okay, this point is completely irrelevant. Burglary is a violation of the law, and there is a legal-monopolistic definition of what act is proscribed and a legal-monopolistic recognition of the right to self defense. I asked you yesterday about whether you agree that the restrictions on proper acts must be encoded in objective monopolistic law, and whether the power to sanction an action in response to law violations must also be under monopolistic control of the government. The question of which indivdual carries out those orders is not on the table at the moment. We can put it back there, once we've sorted out the two logically prior questions. I'll wait to see if you reply to that point.

However, you've made a claim which I feel is worth challenging. Have you heard of any case where the monopoly police refuse to respond to a home invasion in progress (i.e. a 911 call), until days after the fact? If so, please document that case. How often do home security agencies respond to after the fact burglaries (i.e. when the break-in is done with and what remains is the evidence gathering)? Please document some of those cases. Equally important, are you claiming that no private security companies decline to investigate break-ins? (Don't go there: I used to work as a security guard and I know for a fact that it was policy not to pretend to be police detectives. Respond to the immediate threat, leave the rest to the government). BTW, that's an improper construal of what the government monopoly is about, so I'm not condoning this welfare-state type attitude on investigations, just pointing out that you're misrepresenting the facts.

Next, I suppose, you’ll tell me that federal laws banning certain weapons exist because such laws are not constitutionally prohibited.

More accurately, because Congress is given the power to do anything it wants save for a few acts that are prohibited (i.e. they shoulder no burden of proof) plus the fact that the Constitution does not even address the matter of rules of statutory interpretation, an omission which seriously subverts the objectivity of law. Remember to focus on what we actually advocate: a system of objective law.

What a curious view of entrepreneurship!  A profit-making company would rather exhaust its resources in a war rather than work out a compromise?

Of course if depends on the balance of power. My rights are not to be compromised. If you try to steal my property via your unscrupulous defensive agency, I want no compromise at all. If I were dumb enough to hire the agency that has 20 guys with shotguns, I wouldn't expect them to be able to defend my rights and would expect them to capitulate (i.e. compromise on what my rights are). That's why I would go for the biggest, strongest defense agency I can find. Then they would not have to exhaust their resources. In fact, if they are big enough, they might not have to spend any more resources that a postage stamp.

Yes, if one were very, very stupid he might hire a $5 per hour thug to break into a home to collect $6 in royalties from a kid who illegally downloaded a CD.

Not a particularly efficient enforcement of the law. On the other hand, if the kid has set up a business of selling those illegal copies at $2 less than the market price (quite possible because he does not have to pay royalties, not to mention the huge cost of mastering the CD incurred by the original manufacturer), paying a $5 per hour thug -- or even a dozen $10 per hour thugs -- to enforce the claim would be money quite well spent (especially since they would be entitled to recover the cost of enforcing the law). Children pose a particular problem, because they often are not nature enough to go beyond the immediate whim-satisfaction lack of control that typifies 3 year olds. So I don't have anything to offer in terms of how to deal with immature people why think the world owes them happiness: I don't think this is a matter best dealt with by the law. Parents should take responsibility, and the legal system should (and does) recognise that children do not automatically have the rational basis for respecting rights.

[Charlotte Corday]

I don't think so, I think it simply shows the problem inherent in the rule of man as opposed to the rule of law. You may have noticed, if you've read some of my posts, that I havn't claimed that the current federal law is "certain" -- it's rather uncertain and getting more and more subjective. My objection is to your implicit position that all law should be subjective.

Nothing that I’ve written implies that.

Writing the law down does not mean that it will be enforced. The problem is that the rules of interpretation are not made objective and unique, and thus we actually have quite a number of legal systems comingling. The problem you are referring to is precisely the lack of monopoly in the law. Justice Scalia has it right, and Justice Breyer has it wrong. As I've argued elsewhere here, these issues should be part of the Constitution.

The only way I can see to make the Supreme Court more monopolistic is to reduce the number of justices to one. (And this, by the way, is why Thomas Hobbes endorsed one-man dictatorship. Stable, objective government meant no countervailing [dissenting] powers and thus no checks and balances. There would be one law, dictated by one man.)

I haven't heard of the ten thousand commandments, but I can imagine what it is. What's your point? Let me repeat for the millionth time: objective codification of a law is a necessary condition for protection of rights, but it is not sufficient.

Then to make your case you will have to show why monopoly government alone can provide for the objective codification of a law and protection of rights.

Okay, this point is completely irrelevant. Burglary is a violation of the law, and there is a legal-monopolistic definition of what act is proscribed and a legal-monopolistic recognition of the right to self defense. I asked you yesterday about whether you agree that the restrictions on proper acts must be encoded in objective monopolistic law, and whether the power to sanction an action in response to law violations must also be under monopolistic control of the government. The question of which indivdual carries out those orders is not on the table at the moment. We can put it back there, once we've sorted out the two logically prior questions. I'll wait to see if you reply to that point.

While I support a constitutional framework for free market anarchism, I doubt very much that any society other than Hobbesian absolutism can have an immutable, monolithic legal code. The very fact that the U.S. Constitution specifies three branches for the central government is recognition that there will be varying interests and divergent interpretations. If unanimity is the most important criterion, would it not be advisable to merge the branches, and, going further, to have one person absolute in his authority to hand down “objective” law?

However, you've made a claim which I feel is worth challenging. Have you heard of any case where the monopoly police refuse to respond to a home invasion in progress (i.e. a 911 call), until days after the fact? If so, please document that case.

No, I mentioned cases where police did not respond to burglary reports immediately.

Equally important, are you claiming that no private security companies decline to investigate break-ins? (Don't go there: I used to work as a security guard and I know for a fact that it was policy not to pretend to be police detectives. Respond to the immediate threat, leave the rest to the government). BTW, that's an improper construal of what the government monopoly is about, so I'm not condoning this welfare-state type attitude on investigations, just pointing out that you're misrepresenting the facts.

I’ve made no such claim about private security agents. My argument is based on the inescapable fact that capitalist enterprises are motivated by profit incentives and the threat of competition to provide the best services to their customer base. Because they are not threatened by competition, monopolies of security services, like all other monopolies, tend to raise their fees and reduce their services. This is the reason why going to the bank to get a loan is invariably a more pleasant experience than visiting the Dept. of Motor Vehicles to renew one’s license.

More accurately, because Congress is given the power to do anything it wants save for a few acts that are prohibited (i.e. they shoulder no burden of proof) plus the fact that the Constitution does not even address the matter of rules of statutory interpretation, an omission which seriously subverts the objectivity of law. Remember to focus on what we actually advocate: a system of objective law.

What feature of monopoly government will insure that the rules of statutory interpretation will be carried out? If a government can ignore its Second Amendment, what is to prevent it from ignoring all rules on how to interpret the amendments?

Of course if depends on the balance of power. My rights are not to be compromised. If you try to steal my property via your unscrupulous defensive agency, I want no compromise at all. If I were dumb enough to hire the agency that has 20 guys with shotguns, I wouldn't expect them to be able to defend my rights and would expect them to capitulate (i.e. compromise on what my rights are). That's why I would go for the biggest, strongest defense agency I can find. Then they would not have to exhaust their resources. In fact, if they are big enough, they might not have to spend any more resources that a postage stamp.

Of course there are certain advantageous economies of scale. But your mentioning that a dispute can be resolved for the cost of a postage stamp is recognition that war is not necessarily the first impulse of a private security agency.

Not a particularly efficient enforcement of the law. On the other hand, if the kid has set up a business of selling those illegal copies at $2 less than the market price (quite possible because he does not have to pay royalties, not to mention the huge cost of mastering the CD incurred by the original manufacturer), paying a $5 per hour thug -- or even a dozen $10 per hour thugs -- to enforce the claim would be money quite well spent (especially since they would be entitled to recover the cost of enforcing the law). . .

Now explain how this is any different from using the monopoly government’s attorneys and marshals to enforce your royalty claim?