Laws in Anarch-Cap?

What sort of laws would exist in an Anarch Cap society?  

Without a government, how would they be created?  Privately?  Contractually?

 Laws under their current definition ("contracts" that apply to everyone but are not signed by anyone) wouldn't exist. However, voluntary contracts made to protect people would exist. The contract would simply have to be consentual.

Well firstly I'll take the word 'law' and replace it with 'order'.

The reason I am doing this is simple. Law implies that there is a degree of centralization to a certain organization of beliefs. Law implies that an individual is coerced from making certain decisions for fear of physical enforcement.

Lastly, I’m unsure as to what type of law you are alluding to. Are you worried about protecting yourself? Or are you afraid of someone else just infringing on your rights without being fair to profits?

Order exists in “AnCapital.”

I would safely say that it would have to be a mix of contractual and privatized associations. Not one or the other.

Let us say someone wrongs you by attacking you.

In this scenario, the social order of any one locality would most likely have created a contractual agreement to voluntary mercenaries whom are to keep a watch out for this situation from popping up. If you did indeed sign up for protection – through either a guild of mercenaries or a single mercenary – you’d better hope they work well. If you didn’t sign up – you’d have armed yourself for a situation like this.

If someone is going to infringe on your right to live – they have consequently lost theirs. Now, you could be cruel and not carry out your personal retribution (if you successfully defend yourself) and instead force that said person into restitution by public humiliation and force. Everyone will know that this person attempted to commit/committed an act against another human – can they survive long in a society that will boycott his/her money for food? What about their money for protection? If your truly merciful – well, you might get the drift.

Let us now say another person wrongs you by attacking your possessions (be it land, wealth, etc.) This seems to call for restitution vs. retribution. At this point, it appears that a privatized court would be in order to declare whether or not the act was indeed a rightful claim of wrongdoing. These privatized courts would be competitive and more than likely work in tandem with privatized protection.

A great example would be that someone steals from you and claims they didn’t. Well it isn’t very likely that either agency representing the plaintiff and defendant are going to cost each other any great damage – indeed they profit from this scenario – so they’ll more than likely come to agreements without any need for physical force.

Then there’s the issue of an agency that really does use force – I’m sure the payments to that guild are going to be extremely expensive since it costs a lot to fight. So; private courts that use force would dwindle in the light that cheaper, cost effective restitution courts would establish themselves as the main form of orators of order. Now if you’re worried about disputes such as these continuing, I find it unlikely due to the cost any one court could give for bringing up an old argument that is already settled. Who wants to pay for the continued rehashing of old news?

Finally I address the fear that these protection/court agencies could develop into systems of government. How is any one group of (conflicting) agencies going to take over if there is someone on the inside/outside who will compete in the same field and provide possibly improved services upon the existing infrastructure of the protection/court system? How can it happen if in a capitalistic society one is free to voluntarily profit outside of the group as well as in? It may sound a tad cloak and dagger, but if the system can be cheated internally, that is a weakness that needs to be exploited.

*thinks*.. that is all I can come up with at the moment. =D

ViennaSausage:

What sort of laws would exist in an Anarch Cap society?

"Laws" against coercion, theft and fraud...anything more is just showing off.

According to Mises that is all it takes to ensure a Free Market, don't remember where I read that though.

The law is nothing more than what courts are willing to enforce. Under a state the courts are a monopoly and therefore the state can simply declare what is going to be enforced (legislate), but under competing courts some courts will be willing to enforce what other courts won't, and some courts will of course protect people from abusive enforcement of laws they reject. The result should be the emergence of an equilibrium where all courts agree on a set of laws that are in their clients' interests.

What this means for the individual is that he can reject any law that doesn't protect him and he considers unjust.

!?

Stranger:

The law is nothing more than what courts are willing to enforce. Under a state the courts are a monopoly and therefore the state can simply declare what is going to be enforced (legislate), but under competing courts some courts will be willing to enforce what other courts won't, and some courts will of course protect people from abusive enforcement of laws they reject. The result should be the emergence of an equilibrium where all courts agree on a set of laws that are in their clients' interests.

What this means for the individual is that he can reject any law that doesn't protect him and he considers unjust.

Your statement for the most part is correct.

I will however reject the idea that one can reject the status quo without due punishment happening. Let say that an individual doesn't recognize the order that is asked. There are many other ways to individually punish this person. If he is recognized (as in Merchant Law) as a fraudulent baker of pies (lets say he claims to make apple but indeed its just mud) - many should take into account that his pies are made of dirt and thus he needs to be boycotted.

If he intends to move onto a different market - his name is still written down as a 'wrong doer' and many people for the sake of memory will continue to boycott him.

Blah.. not one of my good posts, but I think you get what I mean.

Some actions could result in punishment like violence, theft, and coercion*, but I would not quite call them laws.

* I belive somebody else already mentioned these too.  

mr_anonymous:

Some actions could result in punishment like violence, theft, and coercion*, but I would not quite call them laws.

 

 

* I belive somebody else already mentioned these too.  

*smiles*

Yeah I was beginning to feel as if I didn't say a darned thing at all. lol! Then Anon_Coward implicated the same thing by placing quotes around the word 'law'.

Maybe next time I'll just keep it short and sweet.

au.:

Maybe next time I'll just keep it short and sweet.

 Haha, that is my strategy. 

 The only law would be the natural law: the non-aggression principle and its consequences.  Natural law is not so much created as it is discovered, by the use of reason.

Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty is a good introduction to natural law (especially the first section), and you can download it for free somewhere on mises.org.

I agree with Murray Rothbard that law should (from an ethical viewpoint) and probably would (from an economic viewpoint) resemble propertarian common law. Does it need to be called "law", though? I don't think it necessarily would. "Justice" would still exist, and so would "rules". But I think that what you refer to as "law", because of its historical ties to legislation, would come to be thought of as archaic.

wombatron:

 The only law would be the natural law: the non-aggression principle and its consequences.  Natural law is not so much created as it is discovered, by the use of reason.

 

I disagree here. The natural law is the standard of justice but it consists of general principles and must be fleshed out by human law. In any libertarian society there will be positive law, generally customary, that embodies natural law principles as well as human law. Of course, any laws that conflict with natural law are unjust.

In addition to Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, I recommend Roderick Long's "The Nature of Law."

And with regard to law in anarchy, there are a number of great works out there: Randy Barnett's The Structure of Liberty, Bruce Benson's The Enterprise of Law, the anthology edited by Ed Stringham Anarchy and the Law.

I also recommend these two pieces by Roderick:

"Anarchism as Constitutionalism"

"Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections"

Tom Bell's "Polycentric Law," "The Jurisprudence of Polycentric Law," and "Polycentric Law in the New Millennium" are also useful.

Also, check out George Smith's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market" and Randy Barnett's "Pursuing Justice in a Free Society," parts 1 and 2.

MacFall:

I agree with Murray Rothbard that law should (from an ethical viewpoint) and probably would (from an economic viewpoint) resemble propertarian common law. Does it need to be called "law", though? I don't think it necessarily would. "Justice" would still exist, and so would "rules". But I think that what you refer to as "law", because of its historical ties to legislation, would come to be thought of as archaic.

 Perhaps.  I prefer to use "law" (referring to jus rather than lex, of course), as justice is already used in several other senses (ie; as a virtue and a good in virtue ethics).  It's all semantics, though.

gplauche:

I disagree here. The natural law is the standard of justice but it consists of general principles and must be fleshed out by human law. In any libertarian society there will be positive law, generally customary, that embodies natural law principles as well as human law. Of course, any laws that conflict with natural law are unjust.

Ah.  The optional stuff.  Forgot about that :-)  Yes, I would agree with you then, as long as natural law is the basis of postitive law, and that the positive law contained all of the natural law that is currently applicable.

Also, you always find the most interesting links!

gplauche:

I disagree here. The natural law is the standard of justice but it consists of general principles and must be fleshed out by human law. In any libertarian society there will be positive law, generally customary, that embodies natural law principles as well as human law. Of course, any laws that conflict with natural law are unjust.

In addition to Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, I recommend Roderick Long's "The Nature of Law."

And with regard to law in anarchy, there are a number of great works out there: Randy Barnett's The Structure of Liberty, Bruce Benson's The Enterprise of Law, the anthology edited by Ed Stringham Anarchy and the Law.

I also recommend these two pieces by Roderick:

"Anarchism as Constitutionalism"

"Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections"

 

Tom Bell's "Polycentric Law," "The Jurisprudence of Polycentric Law," and "Polycentric Law in the New Millennium" are also useful.

Also, check out George Smith's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market" and Randy Barnett's "Pursuing Justice in a Free Society," parts 1 and 2.

Thanks for the references.