Could anarchy work in human society?

I absolutely agree. A polycentric order is the only sensible solution. While it's certainly not perfect, it minimizes the risk. The monocentric system actually creates a blockade to further 3rd parties addressing the problem. In other words, it limits the amount of possible 3rd party arbiters. At least in the polycentric order it is possible for a 3rd party to resolve the issue without creating a state in and of itself, since there are more options in the general atmosphere of competition.

Brainpolice:

If there is a need for a monopolist on final decision-making within a given territory, and there are multiple institutions like this controlling different territories, then they would be in a state of anarchy with respect to eachother

Nothing wrong with this so far...

Brainpolice:

and we would therefore require an even higher monopolistic institution to keep them in check. Hence, the logic of the Randian position naturally should lead one to propose a global government

...but now we jump the rails.  This does not follow because to the individual, there are diminishing returns to the utility of multiple layers of government (at least at some point).

Let's think this through from the beginning.  I am a monopolist on final decision-making in my home.  My household is in a state of anarchy in respect to other families.  I require (or rather, see the value in and voluntarily seek) a higher monopolistic institution to keep things in check.  I participate in the creation of a community board to arbitrate disputes.  But now my community is in a state of anarchy with respect to other communities.  It may be that I see the value in and voluntarily seek an even higher monopolistic institution to keep things in check, but it also may not be.  In practical terms I agree with the theory that the city (or "polis") is the largest functional institution that makes sense for mankind.  I don't see how it matters much if cities are in a state of anarchy with respect to each other, or what kind of benefit an individual could get from a state that he can't get from a city.  But in any case, the point is that because of the diminishing returns on the utility of multiple layers of government to the individual, a global government is not the logical outcome of the Randian position.

Brainpolice:

Even if a given institution does not have the power of taxation but still initiates force in order to maintain a territorial monopoly, hence restricting competition by blocking entry to the market, it is still a state.

Yes, but we don't have luxury of simply pondering the best system and then waving our magic wand and seeing it implemented.  We cannot avoid dealing with the fact that we currently alreadly live with a state that exercises both coercive taxation and a territorial monopoly.  Persuading people to sanction a system of voluntary taxation while retaining the territorial monopoly most certainly does retain a "state".  But it is a state of vastly reduced powers.  It will not be able to abuse its territorial monopoly to the same degree under voluntary funding as it would under coercive funding. 

Once we live with a state which gathers its funds persuasively, then it's a much easier transition to a market anarchy.  The state can allow competition in some areas where it previously held a monopoly, itself participating as a low-cost option for the poor (as it will be bolstered by voluntary contributions, aka charity).

maxpot46:

.... Once we live with a state which gathers its funds persuasively, then it's a much easier transition to a market anarchy.  The state can allow competition in some areas where it previously held a monopoly, itself participating as a low-cost option for the poor (as it will be bolstered by voluntary contributions, aka charity).

We can either have a theoretical discussion on which system would be just, right and good or we can discuss what we can actually do about the current system.

Those are two wildly different topics.

You proposed government doesnt get any more right or just only because we today happen to have a system that is a lot worse. Also minarchy is as wacky and impossible as anarchy from a practical position of what system we can actually move towards today. So you argument is flawed placed under the other topic there too...

Zeddicus:

We can either have a theoretical discussion on which system would be just, right and good or we can discuss what we can actually do about the current system.

The topic is neither which system is just, right and good, or what we can do about the current system.  It's whether anarchy could work in human society.  My view is that it can't work if human society is unable to implement it from the current state of affairs.

Zeddicus:

Also minarchy is as wacky and impossible as anarchy from a practical position of what system we can actually move towards today.

Grounds?

Surely you recognize the distinction between the question of how to bring about anarchy and, once anarchy has been established, whether or not it is a just or practical or sustainable way of doing things. This thread is about the latter, not a question of libertarian strategy. The fact that pure anarchism doesn't currently exist is not really a substantive argument against it anymore than the fact that chattel slavery was a seemingly normal precedent in America throughout much of the 19th century is a substantive argument against slavery abolition or the fact that a geocentric model of the solar system was once a common social convention disproves the heliocentric model.

maxpot46:

The topic is neither which system is just, right and good, or what we can do about the current system.  It's whether anarchy could work in human society.  My view is that it can't work if human society is unable to implement it from the current state of affairs.

A lot of stuff is impossible to implement on a large-scale in the forseable future, that does however not make it impossible...
(not only social-economic systems. it goes for technology and stuff to, it's not necessarily impossible to for instance build a fusion reactor with a net-power output at a resonable price just because no-one have figured out how to implement it yet).

It's like saying that because no-one have built a road from A to B that means B doesn't exist.

maxpot46:

Grounds?

People frown there noses and think you are a wacky extremisit just as much if you argue for minarchy as anarchy. At least in my experience arguing for a very limited state havn't been able to rase any additional sympathies.

It is really more the other way around. If you speak about limited government they have heard something about it before and think they know what you are talking about so they stop listening instantly.
If you talk about anarchy (without mentioning the actual word) you might however be lucky enough to spark some interest because it is unfamilar. This can give you enought time to explain to someone who is actually listening to make them see this is not just some crazy idea, but a well though-out system.

Both are still impossibilities to argue in any form av mainsteam media though. Since you will almost never get enough time to appear as something else then a crazy extremisit.

Ego, you say you've read the book, but I get the distinct impression that you either glossed over what Rothbard said about courts or ignored it totally.

-Jon

Brainpolice:

You're brazenly lying about your system: in the case that neither party can agree upon a court system, at least one individual will be forced into using a particular court system against his/her will. Otherwise, the (allegedly) guilty party can't punished.

Firstly, your assumption does not logically follow. You ignore the possibility that no trial will occur at all and the case will not be further persued. It does not logically follow from a stalemate that initiating force is the only possibility.

You're both missing the possibility that the wronged party will act without a trial.  You're both misundestanding the purpose of trials.  You're both assuming a statist view of what a trial is for.

Actually part of my point was precisely that it's possible that people will act without a trial - that there doesn't necessarily have to be one.

Brainpolice:

Actually part of my point was precisely that it's possible that people will act without a trial - that there doesn't necessarily have to be one.

My apologies, then.  I missed that. Ego's central strawman, that both Geoffrey and I have pointed out, is that a trial is necessary to act. You seemed to be conceding it.

The statist view of trials is that the purpose is to prevent people taking the law into their own hands - that there is no legitimate action without a trial. Anarchy starts with the assumption that the law is already in their own hands - and completely legitimately so.  Trials are just a way to reduce the cost of enforcement to both parties, and, quite secondarily, to reduce the possibility of third-party costs.

Ego:

You're brazenly lying about your system: in the case that neither party can agree upon a court system, at least one individual will be forced into using a particular court system against his/her will. Otherwise, the (allegedly) guilty party can't punished.

Yes, and the problem with me or my insurance company forcing a theif to return my property is what exactly?

We always have the right to do that, courts have nothing to do with it.
Courts only come in to play when booth parties want the conflict mediated in the first place.

One valid point against implementing anarchy is that as long as most of the rest of the world is controlled by governments it will have a few serious issues. Sex tourism, well that is more of a inconvinence. But manufacturing of hard drugs (inviting the US Marines), issuing passports, the protection of citizen abroad and extreditions will be some serious problems not easily solved without having some form of fake government.

~

~

This also raises an important question for Ego. Ego, what happens if someone has a dispute with your default court itself? What, if any, third-party arbiter can he and the default court turn to in order to resolve their dispute? Is the default court the final arbiter of last resort, in which case there is no third-party arbiter to whom they can turn and the default court will have to decide its own case (in which it can't possibly be impartial)? Or can they turn to one of the other competing service providers? But if they can do this, what if they can't agree on a third-party arbiter for their dispute? Who can they turn to? Surely not the default court for it is a party to the dispute and we've already noted a problem with it deciding its own case. But if not the default court, then it looks like we've back to the alleged problem you see with a polycentric legal system. The only difference is that the alleged problem has been pushed back a step, but you've added an organization that actively violates rights as a matter of institutional policy, not to speak of all the other problems we've noted with it being a monopolist.

What happens when an individual has a problem with a ruling under your system? Even Rothbard stuttered on that one:

No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals

"Socially accepted"?

Your anger at me implies that you think my system somehow violates the free decisions of individuals. It doesn't violate a single free decision. If you can name one free decision that it violates, I'll change my mind. My system only kicks in when individuals are unable to come to a free decision (and you stated that would rarely happen, so I don't see what your fuss is about!).

What is being proposed as an alternative to your statist, monopolistic model is that the total lack of the initiation of force or coercion, while you continually propose a singular institution with the exclusive right to initiate force or coercion - I.E. a state.

Under your system, there is no lack of force or coercion. While I propose a fallback court, Geoffrey proposes vigilantism:

Or no court at all. You do know the difference between vigilantism and one party forcing the other into court, don't you?

If the fallback court is a violation of rights (and I don't think it is), vigilantism certainly is a violation of rights.

The actual legal system I am proposing does not institutionalize rights-violations; yours does. That makes yours not simply unfair but unjust (and this is leaving aside other arguments I've made against systems such as yours).

~