The concept of competing governments is brought up by Ayn Rand during the 60's in her essay “The Nature of Government”, where she tries to show the absurdity of such a concept. To me, this seems to be a harsh critique of what appears to be the beginning of Anarcho-capitalilsm philosophy. Although she is talking about “competing governments”, her example below seems to be valid to an anarcho-capitalistic society.
Here is her example from the essay that show, according to her, the absurdity of it:
“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's 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.”
These sort of examples do pop up all the time and ultimately lead most people to conclude that a Laissez-fair society with limited government is the only practical means to achieve maximum freedom.
What would be your response to such an example?
how could A and B both make the long term big money? not by launching wars of aggression on each other, and destroying capital and goods on both sides (and lives!), also not by consistently failing to approximate a just solution whenever disputants cross 'government' lines Solution; by coming up with ways to arbitrate. by 3rd party judges . by prearranged inter governmental contracts. etc.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
That it is in the economic interest of police A and B to cooperate instead of shooting each other. Therefore, if we assume that both companies are run by greedy profit-seeking capitalists, it is likely that they will form contractual obligations concerning due process in a situation as outlined above.Of course, we could also institute a monopoly on protection that is not accountable to customers whatsoever and whose members are basically immune to any charges. What happens then? You take it from there.
99,999 times out of 100,000 they'll cooperate with eachother.
Even if they did fight, do you really think that the theory that they might once in awhile go to war is a valid criticism of it compared to the current system? Think about how many wars we have now. A few squabbles betweend PDAs would be nothing.
You can think about it this way:
In order for me to purchase the services of any given "competing government," I have to be adequately convinced that this government will provide me with sufficient security for the price I'm paying. My goal is to be able to live my life without having to worry about somebody harming me or my property, and doing so at the lowest cost. Let's say I've narrowed my decision down to two governments. One provides me with security and court services, but only so long as any disputes I have are with others who are also patrons of my government. My second option has the realistic notion that I'm going to be interacting with people outside its jurisdiction, and has made agreements with other governments, and they have perhaps agreed upon some third party they both believe will resolve any potential disputes fairly.
Clearly the second option is preferable. In order for the situation that Ayn Rand talks about to arise, you would have to assume that a large portion of the population would be willing to take up arms (or pay someone else to take up arms) over any little dispute that arises.
Of course, this means that people have to make compromises, and this is what likely would occur. Take drugs for example. Suppose one group of people believes that drugs should be illegal while another group believes that they should not. The incentives point toward peaceful cooperation, even in this case. How many people can you think of that would be willing to give up the capability to resolve disputes with others just so they can stop other people from doing drugs? How many would be willing to pay huge amounts of money, cut themselves off from a large portion of society, and possibly risk their lives to stop actions of others that are not hurting anybody? More likely than not, people who hold strong beliefs about actions of others that do not break the amazingly universal concept of the non-aggression policy will get together and form their own communities rather than engage in violent conflict that costs lives and money.
http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html
I was thinking recently that if PDA's specialized in religious law, such as sharia law, war would probably be inevitable. Religious zealots would want breakers of religious law punished by their standard, regardless of the offender's PDA policy. By giving in to arbitration, I can see that some religious zealots would deem their PDA as cowards that won't enforce divine law. Surely these PDA's would loose customers to more aggressive religious PDA's
In response to protect their client from these radical PDA's, they would have to start going to battle with them. Giving in to their demands would make these PDA's look weak and would probably loose customer base and profits. The only way to stay in the lime light would be to have a successful war campaign against these religious PDA's or their leaders. The benefits of looking strong would attract more richer, high risk clients, and generate more profit. However going to war would destroy goods and capital. And only knowing what type of weapons they may have, war may be a viable, albeit risky, option if the cost benefit ratio lay on wars' side.
Does this seem a plausible scenario?
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Much of Rand's argument could be equally used for justification of a world government, but even Rand was in opposition to the United Nations, so I don't see her argument as valid for her arbitrary application of it. That, to me, suggests it has limited scope. Lets take a real world situation: two neighbors, one which lives on city incorporated land and one which lives on unincorparated county land. Now, the county neighbor decides to muck up the land owned by the neighbor who lives in the city adjacent to him. So, how do you solve this problem today? It's pretty easy, you go to court. Whether that court is designated by your county or city government or the equivalent in PDAs in an anarchy, The justification for any interlegal constructs is one that's simple: it's cheaper than blowing people away. PDAs would have more market incentive to get along with each other than governments have today for the simple fact that they have no monopoly on the allocation of capital and personnel. Therefore, for them, the PDAs, the drive to get along and to out compete would override any irrational drive to form lumps on the heads of random strangers.
Simply put, the lack of monopoly and the persistence of external forces (customers and other agencies that are not PDAs, but that would employ them...) would operate as mitigators to any potential face-off between two or more PDAs (unlike today's constant face-offs between nation-states of today).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
But shouldn't there be some objective set of laws defined and accepted by all? And since it is unlikely that all individuals will accept these laws, I am having trouble seeing how you could enforce them without having a monopoly over law enforcement. Don't get me wrong here, there is nothing that I would like more then to believe that government can be abolished completely.
For example, what would prevent Christians, or Muslims, or Jews or whatever to seek a legal system based on their religious set of laws? You can't just say it's forbidden because if there is no monopolistic court system, I don't see how you can compel all competing court systems to adopt the same body of laws.
I think that the non-aggression principle is an objective and universal concept that almost everybody understands when they talk about their own actions toward others. From my perspective, this is the biggest reason for not having a monopoly on the legal system. Without a government, people become responsible for their actions, and there is no vague actor known as "the government" that is forcing others to stop their harmless actions, but rather individuals. It then becomes much easier for people to objectively look at a situation and ask, "who was actually wronged in this case?"
That being said, there will almost certainly be people, some Christians and Muslims for example, that would like to have a system of laws based on their beliefs, religious or otherwise. These people certainly have the option of trying to enforce their own set of laws onto others, but they will likely be up against a lot of resistance, leading eventually to violence. Due to the danger of cost of doing this, it is not very likely. Possible, but unlikely. On the other extreme, these people can break off from everybody else and form their own communities where their code of law is strictly followed by everybody who wishes to live or even enter their community.
Somewhere in the middle is more along the lines of what I imagine happening. These people who want a different set of laws would live among society and really wouldn't do anything about what other people do so long as it doesn't hurt anybody, whether it be with regards to drugs, prostitution, or otherwise. But they will choose to be under the jurisdiction of an agency that enforces their own code of laws whenever disputes arise between members following that same code. Basically, it comes down to the idea that if they want to live among everybody else, they're going to have to make compromises. But when they are dealing with each other, they can resolve conflicts by whatever method they choose.
DD5: But shouldn't there be some objective set of laws defined and accepted by all? And since it is unlikely that all individuals will accept these laws, I am having trouble seeing how you could enforce them without having a monopoly over law enforcement.
The objective set of laws you refer to are the laws of nature. By this I mean that when it comes to no-holds-barred violent conflict, the more powerful party will be able to exert their will over the less powerful party. Given that capitalism is driven by production for the masses, it would seem the average hard worker would have the most power, when in common agreement with similar masses of average hard workers.
What is acceptance of law? Using action to promote such law, or simply stating opinions about it? We don't agree with taxation, but I bet most of us pay taxes. The reason for this isn't that we accept taxation as moral, but that we do not believe it is in our best interest to actively resist at this juncture.
Thus, order exists, not simply based upon ideological desires, but upon the ability to enforce law. Anarcho-capitalism is an ideal system of law and law enforcement because it would seem to be best capable of enforcing the laws that preserve free market capitalism, which we believe will provide the most resources at the least cost. Thus, good economy for the average worker means good business for those who protect them and their system of production.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
mtew: These people certainly have the option of trying to enforce their own set of laws onto others, but they will likely be up against a lot of resistance, leading eventually to violence. Due to the danger of cost of doing this, it is not very likely. Possible, but unlikely.
These people certainly have the option of trying to enforce their own set of laws onto others, but they will likely be up against a lot of resistance, leading eventually to violence. Due to the danger of cost of doing this, it is not very likely. Possible, but unlikely.
Now, I've lost you. Due to the danger of cost? Just about everything we do today that departs from pure Capitalism is NOT cost effective. And how many people today believe in pure Capitalism? 1-2% maybe?
Isn't it true that today's interventionists and socialists are already operating on an irrational basis?
mtew: On the other extreme, these people can break off from everybody else and form their own communities where their code of law is strictly followed by everybody who wishes to live or even enter their community.
On the other extreme, these people can break off from everybody else and form their own communities where their code of law is strictly followed by everybody who wishes to live or even enter their community.
And If one runs into a dispute with one of them? say they are Muslim extremists (just an example) and arrest a woman for walking in their neighborhood with out a facial cover, or whatever.. They sentence her to a beating and give her no option of appeal. You may say that this is an illegal act, but illegal according to whom? Your court system, perhaps, but not according to their court system.
My point is that although I agree that this scenario is not in the self-interest of a rational being, it is unrealistic not to expect at least a few extremists who's psychic profit is not of a regular free individual. Due to these expected minority spoilers, how does this Anarcho-capitalistic society not quickly deteriorate into the “chaos” usually associated with Anarchy without an objective set of laws, i.e, a Constitution or some equivalence, and how can it be expected to be maintained by pure voluntary consent, that is without a monopolistic body of courts and police?
.
DD5: What happens then? You take it from there.”
Mutual combat. An improvement over the involuntary servitude we have today.
Though Rand's governments are clearly superior to any today. Her governments actually care about defending their customers!
DD5:You may say that this is an illegal act, but illegal according to whom? Your court system, perhaps, but not according to their court system.
That has nothing to do with anarchism vs statism.
What if this woman had walked into Afghanistan and been beaten by government police?
There will always be people who want to form their own governments. The solution is not to invade them, its to not go there.
Andrew:Does this seem a plausible scenario?
No, it sounds like a silly rant against the "Islamofascists".
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say "due to the danger AND costs associated with doing this..."
But there are a few problems with your objection. First of all, if we get to the point where we are actually living in a society free of government, it's probably likely that much more than 1-2% of people will have come to the conclusion that capitalism is the best system.
Furthermore, the only reason why the government is able to get away with so much intervention in the economy now is because the costs of what it does are hidden due to its territorial monopoly. Again, going back to what I said earlier, people wouldn't just be faced with deciding, "what do we want our government to do," and then making that decision based on majority vote. People would be presented with options, and I'm sure that if people were given the option of a cheap, fair, efficient justice system today, even extremists would see the benefits of resolving conflict peacefully.
But you're right to a point. There will always be people who want to use force and violence in order to get others to do what they want, regardless of the cost. It's just an aspect of human nature. The fundamental question is, how do we stop them from doing this? I believe that the best way to stop people from infringing upon my rights is to pay for the services of a security and justice agency, but always retain the right to purchase the services of a different agency should I choose to do so. If there is an extremist minority that's using violence against me, my agency will put a stop to it, taking up arms if it has to. If it fails in doing this, I'll go to someone else.
No system is perfect, because human beings are not perfect. But a system without monopolistic government provides the best incentives for cooperation and non-violent interaction.
There is a reason there is a posited condition in the word "Anarcho- capitalism" (the condition being capitalism) and not just "anarchy" - the condition directly references to the concept of a legal code that is assumed stable (think Rothbard) - and not under the scope of competing definitions.
Now if you want to just argue anarchy, then everything replied so far is fairly consistent. Mtew's post is rather good in this regard.
Andrew: I was thinking recently that if PDA's specialized in religious law, such as sharia law, war would probably be inevitable.
I was thinking recently that if PDA's specialized in religious law, such as sharia law, war would probably be inevitable.
PDAs that attempt to enforce religious codes beyond those who voluntarily submit to them are outlaw protectors, and no different in a practical sense than those that have nothing to do with religious beliefs. I think that those who would patronize such organizations are very, very few anyway. Most people who advocate and engage in violence, even zealots, do so only because the state makes it possible.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I also tend to think the idea of PDAs as nonsense, but I also don't think they're necessary for anarcho-capitalism. Not every service now supplied by government need be supplied by for-profit outfits in a free society. That would be putting unnecessary emphasis on the "cap" part of an-cap. For example, I believe the best system for basic education would be home schooling: no need for for-profit firms there either.
If a violent crime is thought to have happened in a community, the wise folk could get together, impelled not by profit, but by their natural concern for their community, and deliberate. If there is enough of an agreement that the crime has been committed, the more formidable members of the community could go enforce the decision. This, and a great many variations of this, would seem to be a much safer, smarter, and more natural means of enforcing natural law than a bunch of Police R Us firms running around trying to corner the violent justice market.
Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in 9 steps (Soliciting comments)
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap