Dealing with ultra-libertarian idiocy?

[Yoda]

Montreal's 'night of terror' Montreal is in a state of shock. A police officer is dead and 108 people have been arrested following 16 hours of chaos during which police and firefighters refused to work. At first, the strike's impact was limited to more bank robberies than normal. But as night fell, a taxi drivers' union seized upon the police absence to violently protest a competitor's exclusive right to airport pickups. The result, according to this CBC Television special, was a "night of terror."

Shattered shop windows and a trail of broken glass are evidence of looting that erupted in the downtown core. With no one to stop them, students and separatists joined the rampage. Shop owners, some of them armed, struggled to fend off looters. Restaurants and hotels were also targeted. A corporal with the Quebec provincial police was shot and killed at the garage of the Murray Hill limousine company as taxi drivers tried to burn it down.

As police returned to duty in the wee hours, the arrests began. By morning, the city's public buildings were under guard by the army, which was summoned by Premier Jean-Jacques Bertrand. At least 20 people have been injured, and damage from the riot has been estimated at $2 million ($10.7 million in 2005 dollars).

Historical precedent strikes again. Such cases demonstrate that at the very least, government is required for law enforcement, unless one happens to be into the whole "stone age" thing, in which case ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.

[Surlethe]

Don't let them move the goalposts. "There haven't been any true libertarian societies" is exactly the same logic as "there haven't been any true communist societies". Gee, I wonder why the hell not?

[Civil War Man]

I wonder how their plans for a privatized judicial system would look. Since, even if their idea of social pressure would work, there is always the case of the mentally ill or crimes of passion where deterrants of any kind have historically not worked.

I simply cannot imagine how judges and juries being beholden to a corporate entity could lead to any social injustices whatsoever.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, they state a bunch of a priori rules with no justification whatsoever other than their say-so, and then they draw a conclusion from those rules. Why don't you challenge their initial premises?

Oh, of course I've tried challenging them. They just have a habit of repeating them over and over again as unarguable fact.

Then respond by stating the opposite of their premises as inarguable fact. They'll probably find that infuriating, which is kind of the point.

This is why I was hoping for an argument that works in their own system, so they couldn't pull this kind of evasive tactic.

I honestly don't understand why you would concede such a gigantic point to them. As I said elsewhere, this is like accepting Biblical inerrancy so you can argue with a fundie "in his own system". It's crazy.

[K. A. Pital]

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" bullshit.

Well, challenge them to show a regime which they count as truly anarcho-capitalistic.

If there have not been, provide your own example of deranged societies with absence of government (that's not as hard as finding an example of "anarcholibertarian society").

The "no true libertarian/communist/christian" crap is ridiculous and only suitable for debates with people without a sence of logic. I.e. faith adherents.

As people have already noted, for hardcore Randroids nothing will change, but people who can make 2+2 = 4 will need to see a logic in your statements - an irrefutable, strong logic that breaks down the very core "ideas" of liberto-nuts.

* Individuals do not have the right to take property from/kill/imprison/etc other people. In their terms, "you are never allowed to initiate force."

Show them that any anarchy inevitably devolves into abuse of force by warlords and corporations. Nothing further is needed, their pathetic pacifist bullshit about "doo-goodie people" is crushed utterly in one step.

Show that they do not even have a system of conditioning people to libertarian ideals which can theoretically produce a generation of highly moral people who could act in some sort of anarchy, since they reject government conditioning and education then show that greed as a fundamental engine of this society would inevitably lead to abuse in the absence of law enforcement, since you cannot have laws which will not be enforced - people will not give a fuck about such laws.

Their belief system is in shreds now. Fence-sitters probably are turning their cogs in their heads. Randroids... just tell them to fuck off. Politely.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Just point out examples of no/weak-government paradises like the Sudan and Iraq as their philosophy-in-action and quote the body-counts.

These aren't actually in Anarchy as a philosophical term, they're in anarchy as a pejorative. A better word would be "total chaos". Iraq and the Sudan are both governed in a way that makes sense for them historically: they're under tribal governance. The chaos is being caused by inter-tribal conflict. Throughout the Middle East, tribal rule has always existed parallel to and underneath the official government. In the Sudan and Iraq we're just seeing cases in which the government has elected to allow tribal warfare (Sudan government support for the Janjaweed) or the government was destroyed and replaced by de facto tribal rule (Iraq is chopped up between warlords and their militias, distinguished mainly by their religious and ethnic identities). It isn't a Western style government, but it is a form of governance.

If you're looking for a place and time at which anything approaching an anarcho-liberal society was achieved, you're on a fools errand. Such a thing has never occurred because it is completely unnatural. It isn't just against human nature, it's against animal nature. Hierarchical organization, use of violence for coercion, conflict over resources--all of it is present in any group of social animals (excepting the communist utopias of the insect kingdom). Meerkats, wolves, chimpanzees, humans. It doesn't matter. Blubbering about "rights" and how nobody has the right to use force on your first is idiotic.

* Individuals do not have the right to take property from/kill/imprison/etc other people. In their terms, "you are never allowed to initiate force."

Stupid. Just stupid. This amounts to saying, "If everybody agreed to be nice to each other, things would be great." Theft and violence are facts of life.

* A representative government's powers are supposedly granted by the people, allowing it to act on their behalf.

This is true, but I don't see their point. People who have a representative government want it to provide services. That's the fucking point of having it in the first place; without a government you'll just end up like Iraq, falling back on primitive forms of societal organization, wherein a guy with a Kalashnikov tells you to contribute half your income to the Mahdi army or he'll shoot you in the dick.

* You can't grant a right you don't have.

Don't understand this. Are they saying that rights are absolute and can't be granted, only withheld?

* Therefore the government's powers are all illegitimate, and government is just another band of criminals stealing your hard-earned money.

Here is the short version of what a government--any government, whether it is a feudal state, an absolute monarchy, a republican democracy, or a Fascist dictatorship--does:
Government acts as a middleman in interactions between people to ensure that things are done on the square.

The above is the condensed essence of law and government. Bad governments, like the Third Reich, or the USSR, or France under Louis XVI, are bad because they do this job poorly. The bolded sentence should be obvious to any idiot, but apparently it slips past a lot of people. These are a special kind of idiot, called Anarchist or Anarcho-Liberal.

Digressing a little, taxes happen because the government needs lots of money to do its job regulating social interactions. There are other matters, like public works, that are extraneous to the essential function of government but no less critical. You need roads to trade with neighboring areas, for example.

But back to the Special Ed Class, the a priori assumption the people who invaded your philosophy group are making isn't in that list, because it's so fundamental to their argument. Assuming that they aren't just dilettantes and that they've actually thought about it, instead of just deciding "I hate paying taxes, down with government", here's what they're actually arguing:
People do not need to be governed by the laws of men, they can instead be governed by the Natural Laws.

Natural laws being Rand's "enlightened self-interest", the invisible hand of the market, and so forth. So it basically comes back to these people being stupid. My argument against would be that there isn't any such thing as "enlightened" self interest, just self interest. Government is there to enlighten people to the fact that it's in their self interest to follow the rules.

[Darth Servo]

In other words, they state a bunch of a priori rules with no justification whatsoever other than their say-so, and then they draw a conclusion from those rules. Why don't you challenge their initial premises?

Oh, of course I've tried challenging them. They just have a habit of repeating them over and over again as unarguable fact.

Then respond by stating the opposite of their premises as inarguable fact. They'll probably find that infuriating, which is kind of the point.

I try that with my idiot libertarian brother, he just repeats himself again even louder.

[Patrick Degan]

Just point out examples of no/weak-government paradises like the Sudan and Iraq as their philosophy-in-action and quote the body-counts.

These aren't actually in Anarchy as a philosophical term, they're in anarchy as a pejorative. A better word would be "total chaos". Iraq and the Sudan are both governed in a way that makes sense for them historically: they're under tribal governance. The chaos is being caused by inter-tribal conflict. Throughout the Middle East, tribal rule has always existed parallel to and underneath the official government. In the Sudan and Iraq we're just seeing cases in which the government has elected to allow tribal warfare (Sudan government support for the Janjaweed) or the government was destroyed and replaced by de facto tribal rule (Iraq is chopped up between warlords and their militias, distinguished mainly by their religious and ethnic identities). It isn't a Western style government, but it is a form of governance.

The point is still the same: if the premise is that a nation can organise itself as a cohesive, functioning society with a weak central government or no central government whatsoever (as the Randroids preach), places like Iraq and Sudan destroy that premise utterly. And while it's technically true that tribal rule is "a form of governance", it is not any form which is compatible with a cohesive national society. In point of fact, it is its exact opposite.

[Darth Wong]

Oh, of course I've tried challenging them. They just have a habit of repeating them over and over again as unarguable fact.

Then respond by stating the opposite of their premises as inarguable fact. They'll probably find that infuriating, which is kind of the point.

I try that with my idiot libertarian brother, he just repeats himself again even louder.

I'm talking about dealing with ideologues in an academic setting, where screaming at people is not tolerated.

[MartianHoplite]

Ok, I know this is an old thread. However, I feel I can provide a new perspective because.

1) I am a libertarian extremist; an anarcho-capitalist, if you will.

2) I was one of these so-called "invaders" at [user]iPeragrine[/user]'s philosophy club.

3) I am, in fact, the very one who said that it would be morally acceptable to kill a tax collector. However, just so you know that I'm not completely bat-shit crazy (I'm only mostly bat-shit crazy), I did immediately add the caveat that it would be a profoundly stupid and counter-productive thing to do.

I promise I didn't follow iPeragrine here, but found this thread merely by chance. I'm here because SD.net is full of very smart people who are a.hostile to libertarianism and b. capable of raising very on-point criticisms.

As regards the allegations of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

It is a simple historical fact that there has never been an explicitly anarcho-capitalist society. However, various societies have been more or less libertarian throughout history. By "libertarian", I mean that individual rights and property claims are respected and encroachment upon them, even by government, either does not happen, or is not tolerated. I do not simply mean bigger or smaller government.

Looking at the historical record, it seems to me that the more libertarian societies have fared much better.(I will justify this claim at some point, for now, take it as a mere statement of my personal opinion.)

Some specific issues that have been raised.

Somalia

This deserves a response beyond "it's not anarcho-capitalism." It's not, strictly speaking, but it is a stateless society and that's noteworthy in and of itself.

For starters, it's obvious that everything is not peaches and puppy dogs in Somalia. There are warlords running protection rackets, extorting money from people within their "territory" and fighting amongst each other.

However, what often doesn't get mentioned is that Black Hawk Down is no longer an accurate portrayal of daily life in Somalia. The sudden collapse/overthrow of a long established government is likely to result in chaos. That's why I don't advocate any such thing. The reality that people gloss over or go straight past is the remarkable extent to which things have settled down and started to sort themselves out over the last 16 years.

Link
Link
Link

Even the unpleasantness between the Islamic Courts Union and the warlords (later the Ethiopians) has been greatly overblown in the west. While they were certainly not Libertarian (their goal was the enforcement of Islamic law in Somalia) they were not (at first) a monolithic group, but a collection of courts enforcing varied interpretations (fairly liberal to fairly extreme) of Islamic law. Furthermore, they did have many anarcho-capitalist characteristics, like charging customers for bringing disputes to court, rather than levying taxes.

From the Wikipedia article...

After the collapse of the Somali government in 1991, a system of sharia-based Islamic courts became the main judicial system, funded through fees paid by litigants. Over time the courts began to offer other services such as education and health care. The courts also acted as local police forces, being paid by local businesses to reduce crime. The Islamic courts took on the responsibility for halting robberies and drug-dealing, as well as stopping the showing of what it claims to be pornographic films in local movie houses. Somalia is almost entirely Muslim, and these institutions initially had wide public support. The early years of the courts include such outfits as Sheikh Ali Dheere's, established in north Mogadishu in 1994 and the Beled Weyene court initiated in 1996. They soon saw the sense in working together through a joint committee to promote security. This move was initiated by four of the courts - Ifka Halan, Circolo, Warshadda and Hararyaale - who formed a committee to co-ordinate their affairs, to exchange criminals from different clans and to integrate security forces. In 1999 the group began to assert its authority. Supporters of the Islamic courts and other institutions united to form the ICU, an armed militia. In April of that year they took control of the main market in Mogadishu and, in July, captured the road from Mogadishu to Afgoi.[4] Their system of government, controlled by judges, is known as a krytocracy.

Yes, they made a power grab and attempted to institute themselves as a new government. This is not at all surprising given that most Somalis are probably not anarchists ideologically and quite likely sincerely want a monopolistic government of some sort. I don't think this criticism holds as much water in a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society that has been intentionally created as such.

More Wikipedia goodness. (yes, Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, but this is an internet forum post, not a scholarly paper)

A better example of historic anarcho-capitalism, I think, is offered by the American wild west.

Various types of voluntary associations were formed by pioneers to protect their rights and their property either due to corruption in government or because the state simply hadn't gotten around to extending itself in a serious way to the remote frontier settlements. Claims associations, mining camps, vigilance committees and other such organizations did a remarkable job in preserving order and preventing chaos while protecting the rights of members, including those falsely or wrongly accused of some offense.

An even more thorough and in-depth historical-empirical analysis of the private provision of law and protection (including a devastating public choice critique of state law and law-enforcement) is Bruce Benson's The Enterprise of Law, which, if you are so inclined, should be available in any decent university library.

[K. A. Pital]

I am a libertarian extremist; an anarcho-capitalist, if you will.

Wow. A bold one

It is a simple historical fact that there has never been an explicitly anarcho-capitalist society. However, various societies have been more or less libertarian throughout history. By "libertarian", I mean that individual rights and property claims are respected and encroachment upon them, even by government, either does not happen, or is not tolerated. I do not simply mean bigger or smaller government.

Individual rights to property are dependent on legal system, which needs enforcement to work. In case a government cannot enforce right to property in all cases, "libertarianism" cannot not exist and that's the end of story. I have already detailed why libertarianism is so useless and such an unpopular political fringe - it's because it never produced any society that was libertarian or had a hardcore ideology of transition to libertarianism. Most anarcho-capitalist societies that occured did not have libertarian ideology pushing that process, but mere growth of industry and new mechanisms of property aquisition. Therefore, they turned out a mess.

However, what often doesn't get mentioned is that Black Hawk Down is no longer an accurate portrayal of daily life in Somalia. The sudden collapse/overthrow of a long established government is likely to result in chaos. That's why I don't advocate any such thing. The reality that people gloss over or go straight past is the remarkable extent to which things have settled down and started to sort themselves out over the last 16 years.

It doesn't matter whether collapse of government is immediate or not. Somalia now is a shithole. Yes, it's "better" in the sense that warlordism has strengthened positions and it becomes a mob-gang-rule anarchy with less intensity of fighting.

I don't think this criticism holds as much water in a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society that has been intentionally created as such.

It does. Biological humans are collective animals. Yes, humans are subject to conditioning, but since libertarianism rejects government mass conditioning as a method to produce the necessary human attitude, there will not be a shift in people's perspective to anarchism, nor a mass support of that movement. "Intentionally created" - only the government or a quasi-government entity has the power to condition people to be "anarchist", "libertarian", "democratic", "monarchist" and even then this power is very limited. Libertarianism rejects this mechanism, so who will be mass supporting this fringe idea and why? No one, and for zero reasons - well, except those who see it as a means to exploit some legal loopholes or profiteer.

A better example of historic anarcho-capitalism, I think, is offered by the American wild west.

That's not a good example. First of all, the Wild West was not an entirely industrial society, it was only undergoing such, and then it had pretty social conditions anyway. It might be a good example of anarchism, but it inevitably evolved towards a government which is the course for all anarchic movements until human production, in economy, does not become so effective that a lone human can produce all he needs on the basic level.

Capitalism from the XVIII century onwards was only developing, and in the beginning of XX century fully capitalist societies were formed in the US and Europe.

The truth is, real anarcho-capitalist societies have fared badly. In some places, extreme capitalism was enforced by dictate, with the same disastrous result for the society. Also, a return to government from anarchy was inevitable in all historic cases, which represents a fundamental need for order to protect at least the very basic rights and provide the very basic needs.

[K. A. Pital]

^pretty bad social conditions

[MartianHoplite]

It does. Biological humans are collective animals. Yes, humans are subject to conditioning, but since libertarianism rejects government mass conditioning as a method to produce the necessary human attitude, there will not be a shift in people's perspective to anarchism, nor a mass support of that movement.

1)Biological humans are social animals. Ants are collective animals. Humans think and act as individuals, although we are capable of cooperation and it is greatly to our advantage to do so. No anarchist disputes this. We hold, however, that it is more ethical and more productive when humans cooperate voluntarily rather than under duress.

2)Please explain what you mean by conditioning? Do you mean Pavlovian or Thorndike conditioning. which are fairly specific effects? Do you mean magical communist "conditioning" whereby human nature itself is remolded to create the "new socialist man?" Or do you simply mean the spread of memes? Be specific.

As far as the spread of ideological memes goes, there are many ways this can occur besides government propagandizing. Am I to believe that the English Crown is responsible for spreading republican and anti-monarchist ideals that culminated in the American revolution?

the Wild West was not an entirely industrial society, it was only undergoing such

So? It did support a wide range of economic activities including trade, mining, agriculture, and even private finance and the minting of money. I don't see how you can just casually dismiss it. Who's engaging in the no-true-scotsman (no-true-society) fallacy now?

It might be a good example of anarchism, but it inevitably evolved towards a government which is the course for all anarchic movements

Again. So what? The people who headed west to seek their fortunes were primarily statists of one stripe or another. Is it really that surprising that they established a state as soon as they were practically able?

[ArcturusMengsk]

Not all anarchists reject the concept of social organization out-of-hand, mind. I have strong sympathies towards anarcho-syndicalism, wherein the 'government', to put it very loosely, is the labor union. Also, not all anarchists take issue with the concept of hierarchy a priori; most (of the sensible ones) simply wish to eliminate personal hierarchy. A hierarchy naturally arises from any social order; the effort must be made to minimize - not eliminate - their negative effects.

This naturally doesn't hold for radical anarcho-capitalists, who are basically plutocrats. But there are many variations of anarchism, some more ideologically extreme than others.

[K. A. Pital]

Biological humans are social animals. Ants are collective animals.

You're nitpicking language issues with a non-native English speaker. The core of the argument remains the same.

We hold, however, that it is more ethical and more productive when humans cooperate voluntarily rather than under duress.

That's a goal of many utopias. If you consider law and the government which inevitably follows that a "duress" on society, then your goal is unattainable and in general not desirable for a human society.

Please explain what you mean by conditioning?

Conditioning is the installation of specific worldviews, attitudes and life values through the continous process of upbringing, education and work environment communications. Large-scale conditioning (on a national level) can only be run through government programs.

Am I to believe that the English Crown is responsible for spreading republican and anti-monarchist ideals that culminated in the American revolution?

"Anti"-ideas originate as an opposing force to the power. Anarchism is only popular and not a bunch of fringe lunatics in times when an excessively corrupt or brutal government exists. At that point anarchism may rise spontaneously as the continuation of "oppose government" line of thought. As soon as some stability is achieved, anarchism evaporates since it has nothing to crush, and a government entity is installed anew.

It did support a wide range of economic activities including trade, mining, agriculture, and even private finance and the minting of money. I don't see how you can just casually dismiss it.

So what? Feudalism also supported such economic activities - trade, agriculture, mining, and even minting money and private finance. I'm not dismissing it, merely stating that it was in transition to capitalism.

So what? The people who headed west to seek their fortunes were primarily statists of one stripe or another. Is it really that surprising that they established a state as soon as they were practically able?

Are you saying that people just "establish" states for no reason, or that it's not in the society's interest to establish the government? That's bullshit, sorry. The government is the most resilent human organization and to achieve any degree of higher industrial development and large-scale unification, societies inevitably form governments. If humans were unwilling to form governments, they would evaporate. Instead they became the standard of human organization, whereas anarchy has not. Therefore, governments have social importance and are not the device of evil "statists", but reflect the needs of the human societies.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, do you just choose to ignore the fact that you need law enforcement to have a legal system, and have a government to make law enforcement?

[MartianHoplite]

I don't know, do you just choose to ignore the fact that anarcho-capitalists do believe in the necessity of law and law enforcement?

We just believe in the creation of contractual, private, law and enforcement arrangements.

People will act to protect themselves and their property. People will organize to more effectively protect themselves and their property. People will contract for and trade protective and legal services on the market in order to reap the benefits of division of labor and specialization in trade. None of these things requires a monopolistic government that restrains competition and initiates force against people and their property who pose no threat to anyone else.

Any criticism you make of anarcho-capitalism can apply to the present international order, where there are local states which enjoy sovereignty and don't report to a higher, world super-state.

What if a person from one country commits a crime against a person from another? Well, there are extradition treaties that exist between countries. Two countries are unlikely to go to war over a private wrong committed by the citizen of one against a citizen of another. So too with private security firms.

What if people want to trade with people or businesses in other countries? There is no court or legal system that has jurisdiction over both parties to the transaction, so by your logic, this should make peaceful, honest trade between them impossible.

What if one country tries to take over the rest, and establish itself as ruler of the world? Well, this has been attempted more than once, but one country doesn't have the power to beat all the others, and it's in their interest to band together and stop the aggressor.

What we propose is nothing fundamentally different from what exists today, just with more sovereign "states", up to a maximum of 6.3 billion.

[ArcturusMengsk]

The point is, MartianHoplite, that the corporation has no responsibility to any individual who is not a shareholder and therefore is under no obligation to act in the best interests of the people. At least under syndicalism the union would be forced, by virtue of the relationship between the worker and labor, to provide a social safety net and ensure such necessities as law enforcement and common defense. The syndicalist method also guarantees the rights of every individual to equal protection under the law without regard to monetary possession (chiefly because monetary possession becomes useless save in day-to-day transactions under syndicalism). Strains of anarchism can work; anarcho-capitalism patently cannot.

[Ender]

I'm not sure if I'm more astounded by the fact this nitiwt doesn't grasp that the killing a tax collector is counterproductive because it is morally unacceptale, or by the fact he thinks Somalia is a good example of a libertarian society steadying itself despite the fact that it has only calmed down because other countries have been going in and knocking heads for the past 16 years. Just because America pulled out didn't stop other countires with interests there.

I'm also curious as to what exactly is the difference between a mercenary company you pay for (I'm not going to deign to use your weasel words, lets call a spade a spade here. Blackwater and their ilk are mercenaries) and a protection racket. Neither is responsible for you or to act in your best interests, you are just paying them and hoping they don't decide it is worth it to accept a better offer and screw you over.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know, do you just choose to ignore the fact that anarcho-capitalists do believe in the necessity of law and law enforcement?

We just believe in the creation of contractual, private, law and enforcement arrangements.

People will act to protect themselves and their property. People will organize to more effectively protect themselves and their property. People will contract for and trade protective and legal services on the market in order to reap the benefits of division of labor and specialization in trade. None of these things requires a monopolistic government that restrains competition and initiates force against people and their property who pose no threat to anyone else.

That's a wonderful theory which works beautifully, so long as all of the parties have roughly equal power. In a more asymmetrical situation, your model allows the strong to mistreat the weak. Has this ever occurred to you? Or do you consider that perfectly acceptable?

Any criticism you make of anarcho-capitalism can apply to the present international order, where there are local states which enjoy sovereignty and don't report to a higher, world super-state.

Do you feel that the present international order is actually working well?

What if a person from one country commits a crime against a person from another? Well, there are extradition treaties that exist between countries. Two countries are unlikely to go to war over a private wrong committed by the citizen of one against a citizen of another. So too with private security firms.

And you actually think this model works well? What happens when a citizen of a powerful country commits a crime against a citizen of a weak country? Oh yeah, sweet fuck-all happens.

What if people want to trade with people or businesses in other countries? There is no court or legal system that has jurisdiction over both parties to the transaction, so by your logic, this should make peaceful, honest trade between them impossible.

Apparently, you have never opened a history book. Wars have often been precipitated by international trade issues.

What if one country tries to take over the rest, and establish itself as ruler of the world? Well, this has been attempted more than once, but one country doesn't have the power to beat all the others, and it's in their interest to band together and stop the aggressor.

You are aware that millions die in this process, are you not?

What we propose is nothing fundamentally different from what exists today, just with more sovereign "states", up to a maximum of 6.3 billion.

If you think that the international relations of nation-states are a good model for the relations of individuals in a peaceful society, you must have well and truly slept through every history class in your life.

[Ender]

It occurs to me (Though I'm sure it will be denied on blind faith with a No-True-Scotsman fallacy rather then reasoned out) that New Orleads after Katrina would be a prime example of an anarchist society. We had groups of citizens banding together for self defense that were then provided for with supplies as a form of payment. How did that work out?

Oh yeah, clan warfare. Duh. Up to and including mercenary companies that were flown in opening fire on rescue operations. I had to surge down there to fix it.

[Darth Wong]

So far, he has tried to use Somalia, the UN, and World War 2 as examples of how effective and peaceful an unregulated social order can be. I'm starting to wonder if he is actively trying to sabotage his own argument.

[MartianHoplite]

In reverse order

It occurs to me (Though I'm sure it will be denied on blind faith with a No-True-Scotsman fallacy rather then reasoned out) that New Orleads after Katrina would be a prime example of an anarchist society.

Rather than immediately "no-true-scotsman" New Orleans, let me first share with you my own hurricane experience. This is from Hurricane Fran that hit North Carolina in 1996.

The roads were completely shut down by fallen trees and swollen, overflowing creeks, utilities were off. Repair crews and government agents were miles away down impassible roads and behind flooded bridges.

People simply broke out their chainsaws, and helped each other start clearing off the roads. People who had it were sharing ice to help others keep the food in their refrigerators from spoiling. Folks went around to make sure their elderly neighbors were fairing alright.

The power was off for three days, the government was nowhere to be seen for at least the first day. Yet, rather than fall apart, the community came together.

Granted, I grew up in a rural area where people were already used to being largely self reliant, but there's no reason why the same community spirit couldn't be made to work elsewhere. I would contend that major disruptions in communities that result in chaos and criminality can largely be traced to failed government policies that foster dependency.

I fully admit that the sudden overthrow or collapse of a long-established government leads to chaos. That is why I advocate the gradual creation and adoption of alternative institutions.

If you think that the international relations of nation-states are a good model for the relations of individuals in a peaceful society, you must have well and truly slept through every history class in your life.

I don't think nation states provide law, security and defense any better than the nations that have tried it have provided food, shelter and clothing. That's why I support privatization of what is essentially a socialist industry.

There are very concrete reasons that individuals behave much worse when acting as part of state government than they would in their private dealings.

For one thing, state criminality is not generally regarded as such. Private murder is almost universally frowned upon. "Pre-emptive war" is discussed openly in polite company. Theft is thoroughly stigmatized, unless a government does it and calls it taxation. Bullying and assault are not tolerated unless committed by police officers. Even after the most egregious and indefensible acts of police brutality have incited widespread public condemnation, you will always find some goose-stepper willing to publicly defend such behavior. State agent simply aren't held to the same standards in their public conduct as they or anyone else is in their private conduct. I think nobody should be granted that same leniency, ever.

Furthermore there are very compelling economic reason why states will behave badly vis-a-vis each other and their own populations.

Do you feel that the present international order is actually working well?

No, absolutely not. However, if you're going to criticize anarchy in general, then you have to criticize the sort of anarchy that already exists, the anarchy between nation states, and advocate one world government. If that's not what you advocate then lets talk about how to create a better kind of anarchy.

That's a wonderful theory which works beautifully, so long as all of the parties have roughly equal power. In a more asymmetrical situation, your model allows the strong to mistreat the weak. Has this ever occurred to you?

That's a problem that, unfortunately, can't be eliminated entirely by any system. I hope your not arguing that states have never abused the weak for the benefit of the strong?

I'm also curious as to what exactly is the difference between a mercenary company you pay for (I'm not going to deign to use your weasel words, lets call a spade a spade here. Blackwater and their ilk are mercenaries) and a protection racket.

A "protection" racket mainly just protects you from having your kneecaps broken by its own agents. Its a coercive relationship very much like the ones governments have with their subjects. Blackwater is neither a protection racket nor a private security firm. It's a mercenary force which serves as an auxiliary to a state military.

A better example would be the half a dozen large security companies that already do business in my home town. If I'm not satisfied with the dismal quality of protection the police offer me, I can contract with one of these firms for additional security. If I contract with one, the others don't bother me. If I don't contract with any, none of them bother me. They leave me be until I request their protection, but they're willing to provide it if I'm willing to pay. I have no reason to fear that this would change simply because the police were absent from the equation. No one security firm would be able to overpower all the others and, knowing this, would be unlikely to try. The threat that its customers would flee to its competitors also provides a great deal of incentive to provide good service and refrain from violating their rights. Corruption, though not impossible, is less likely than with state police because even a profitable special relationship with one customer, by jeopardizing all the others, is a threat to a company's viability.

Mind you, all this doesn't even posit the existence of an effective anarcho-capitalist legal system, which would make my rights even more secure against rogue security firms by allowing me to hold them civilly liable for their misdeeds against me.

[MartianHoplite]

More on the economic reason why states will not provide law and law enforcement well. This is from a post I made on another forum.

When analyzing the performance of some government program, it is important not just to look at its stated goals and objectives, but also at the incentives faced by those charged with carrying them out.

The first problem, when considering the present criminal justice system, is that the lawmaking process is a commons. By this I mean that the legislatures of the various states and the Congress of the US constitute a common pool of all the rights and property of all the individuals subject to their jurisdiction. Anyone, by organizing with a few like-minded individuals, can enter the legislative fray and lobby for some law to benefit themselves at the expense of someone else, or to impose their ideals upon society at large. The cost of thus successfully lobbying for a new law is almost always much less than the cost of enforcing it, or carrying it into effect. What this means is that interest groups can derive considerable benefit from laws, and yet externalize the costs onto others.

Small, concentrated interest groups, with narrow objectives, are usually more successful than larger, more diffuse groups. This is due to the high transaction costs of organizing large groups, and the "free rider" problem that such groups suffer. Their members, individually, have every incentive to try and shirk their portion of the expense and obligation membership entails, while continuing to derive the benefit. Small, more tight-knit interest groups, in addition to facing an easier time of organizing, and having much more ability to control the free rider problem, can also push for legislation that benefits their small membership quite a lot, and harms the public relatively little.

For this reason, we have a few thousand sugar farmers in Louisiana who can politically maintain import restrictions that result in Americans paying more than three times the world price for sugar. Though this costs us billions every year for only a few thousand jobs, it is politically profitable, because these few thousand owe their entire livelihoods to the law, and will fight tooth and nail to defend it, while you and I are each out a few dollars per year, hardly worth the trouble of organizing ourselves in opposition. Thus, it is in the interest of every individual, under our system, to fight for bad laws to benefit themselves, rather than spending the same energy fighting for good laws to benefit everyone. Under such a system as ours, no law but bad law can prevail.

This same analysis applies to criminal law as to any other type. Government bureaucrats, including law enforcement, are among the best organized and most influential interest groups. It is in the interests of law enforcement, to criminalize more behavior, and to lobby for more funds and more officers with which to combat this behavior. Law enforcement will always be able to find allies in this undertaking, among a small but militant minority of Americans, who are obsessed with controlling the behavior of their neighbors. We have seen a marked increase, over the last century, in the number of victimless crime laws and the strength of the police forces constituted to enforce them.

In addition to the commons in legislation, the police resources thus created are also a commons. Anyone may call upon the police for assistance, without having to bear, directly, any of the cost for providing it. Police are thus swamped by routine calls about cats stuck in trees, keys locked in cars, and various other social-worker, caretaker, baby-sitter or errand-boy activities. Police services are therefore simultaneously grossly over provided, as well as being, relative to their capacity, grossly overused. The combination of police being charged with enforcing an ever larger code of bad laws, many of them criminalizing behavior that is not truly criminal, and the fact that police are overstretched dealing with the inevitable routine demands on their time and resources, reduces the likelihood that they will address real crimes in a timely or satisfactory way.

Prosecutors also face a commons in prison resources. Since a prosecutor advances his career by sentencing as many people as possible, but does not have to bear any of the costs associated with imprisoning an offender, prisons will always be filled to or above capacity, no matter how fast they are built. Thus, there will always tend to be more and more people imprisoned for more and more dubious offenses. This state of affairs is monumentally wasteful, both in terms of taxpayer dollars spent, and in terms of the lost productivity of those imprisoned, to say nothing of the injustice of it all.

Access to the courts at essentially zero marginal cost has produced runaway litigation, filled dockets and long delays. Prices are not allowed to ration judicial resources, so Soviet-style rationing by waiting takes place. This congested and inefficient court system is shielded from reform by powerful interests who stand to benefit by continuing to abuse the present state of affairs. Lawyers are an obvious example of a class that benefits from our grossly overused system of civil and criminal courts. Insurance companies, to offer another example, are notorious for failing to pay out claims in a timely or complete manner, knowing that even though the courts will rule against them, the expense and delay of taking a dispute to court can serve to convince a customer to settle for less than they are due. For these reasons and others, government courts are unlikely to be reformed.

Exclusionary evidence rules, by which courts routinely acquit obviously guilty criminals, offer one of the most stark and egregious examples of this system of competing interests. Civil Liberties interest groups, incensed by police bullying and abuse, push for accountability measures. Police, through their own interest groups, resist. The resulting political compromise is the establishment of exclusionary evidence rules. Courts let guilty criminals loose, which doesn't cost police anything; they've already made the arrest, so their numbers look good. If the criminal offends again, the crime statistics will only justify the need for more police and more money. Meanwhile, it looks like something is being done about the very real problem of police abuse. The logical answer, to make police officers and departments directly liable for violating the rights of the innocent, will never be politically workable because of the power of the law enforcement lobby.

[Patrick Degan]

I don't know, do you just choose to ignore the fact that anarcho-capitalists do believe in the necessity of law and law enforcement?

We just believe in the creation of contractual, private, law and enforcement arrangements.

Given how poorly this has worked in the case of Blackwater, I wouldn't be holding this up as a viable idea if I were you. I could also point out examples in American history of mining companies which had their own police forces and used them to brutally crush worker dissent and union-organisation activities. Sorry, but contractual, private law enforcement will always end up working exclusively for the company that hires them and not for society in general.