Do Anarchists Enforce a Lack of Government?

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

Do anarchists enforce their preference of having no government?

Suppose that I lived in an anarchist society and, one day, started a protection company. Suppose further that my company was so good at protecting people that my company grew, to the point where a large majority of the people in the society were hiring my company for personal protection and the competition became nearly irrelevant. Assuming that my company never initiated the use of force, i.e. I never break the Non-Aggression Principle, what would anarchists do?

If you see no problem with this situation then you may want to reconsider your position, because this is Minarchism.

[dpalme]

How is that minarchism? Even though you state that there's a lack of need for competition, there is still the ability of competition. Your not forcing your "protection" on people, that's great. That's not government.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

States are successful criminal gangs that extract "protection money" from people in large geographic areas. You have not described a state. Protection money, in the sense of hiring someone to protect you, is not the same as "protection money," the mafia's way of saying pay up or else.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

Actually, the company does force it's protection on others. That's the whole point. If someone attempts to rob a client of the company, it will use physical force to prevent them from doing so. No consent from the robber is given for the force being used against him.

Obviously, this is not a violation of the NAP. However, to say that it is not a use of physical force is plain wrong.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

Also, a state is not necessarily a "criminal gang."

What I suggest, as a Minarchist, is to have a central authority that's sole purpose is the enforcement of the non-aggression principle, or, in other words, to protect people. It should do this without any initiation of force (including mandatory taxes).

You could try to argue that such an authority would be unfeasible, but it would be ridiculous to compare it to the mafia.

[Josh D]

Also, a state is not necessarily a "criminal gang."

What I suggest, as a Minarchist, is to have a central authority that's sole purpose is the enforcement of the non-aggression principle, or, in other words, to protect people. It should do this without any initiation of force (including mandatory taxes).

You could try to argue that such an authority would be unfeasible, but it would be ridiculous to compare it to the mafia.

This is a really bizarre notion.  I don't think I understand what you mean.  In your system, would the central authority allow for competing organizations that protect the peace (or enforce the non-aggression principle)?  If it would not allow for competition, then how would it enforce its monopoly status?  Through force?  If it allows for competition in whatever it does, then it isn't a government.  Also, it would no longer be a 'central authority'.

I think you have either constructed a logical impossibility or you are using language incorrectly, but I'm not sure.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

It would not only allow private protection companies. It would encourage them.

However, it is a central authority, because it is the final arbiter of disputes. For example, if a private protection company, or anyone for that matter, were to violate the NAP, it would protect those being harmed. The company could object, saying that it never violated the NAP, but the decision of this authority would be final and it would use physical force to enforce it's judgements.


I wrote an article on the problems with private protection in the absence of a central arbiter in my blog: http://mostlylibertarian.com/principals/necessity-of-central-authority/

[Josh D]

It would not only allow private protection companies. It would encourage them.

However, it is a central authority, because it is the final arbiter of disputes. For example, if a private protection company, or anyone for that matter, were to violate the NAP, it would protect those being harmed. The company could object, saying that it never violated the NAP, but the decision of this authority would be final and it would use physical force to enforce it's judgements.


I wrote an article on the problems with private protection in the absence of a central arbiter in my blog: http://mostlylibertarian.com/principals/necessity-of-central-authority/

L. Neil Smith sidesteps some of your objections in his novel The Probability Broach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Probability_Broach

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

Could you summarize?

[dpalme]

The problem with a small central authority is that it grows, and it grows quick. You're caught in a utopian dream that a small government will do no wrong and won't become corrupt. It'll happen, and it will happen quickly.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Actually, the company does force it's protection on others. That's the whole point. If someone attempts to rob a client of the company, it will use physical force to prevent them from doing so. No consent from the robber is given for the force being used against him.

Ah, so by purchasing protection, I am indirectly forcing someone to not kill me. I will force you to not kill or steal from me, and I back that up with a gun. I must be a criminal. *Rolls eyes*

Obviously, this is not a violation of the NAP. However, to say that it is not a use of physical force is plain wrong.

That's how folks in the libertarian movement use the term force. Say I'm walking down the street and someone tries fighting me, then if I make any sort of effort to resist a curb stomping then I should be described as "using force"? It doesn't seem right. I'm *forced* into resisting for my own self-preservation. I am not using violent force in the ethical sense, but I may direct a force at his body in the physical sense. But the physical sense isn't what we were ever talking about. If I let you punch me in the face and don't do anything back, I still exercised force against you. My jaw hit your first with an equal and opposite force, despite the fact that I never wanted it to happen. Got it?

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

I specifically used the words "physical force" so that know equivocations could be made about my meaning!

If you steal from me and I tell you "give the money back or I'll kick your ass" that is an example of coercion through physical force. But, it is not a violation of the NAP and it is not "criminal."

This is exactly what I would expect a protection company to do for me as a client and exactly what I would want a Libertarian government to do for it's citizens (but hopefully in a more efficient manner).

I would not want any mandatory taxes or subsidies or licensing laws or a federal reserve or drug laws or any regulation of free trade through mutual consent whatsoever!

[Josh D]

Could you summarize?

Not really, but it's not a very long book, and it's an enjoyable read.  (If you like science fiction.)  In his libertarian society when you have a dispute, you find a Judge for hire that both parties agree on.  They pay for the services of this judge.  The judge makes a ruling, if one of the parties disagrees with the ruling, then both parties find a second judge that makes a decision on the matter.  If the original is reversed, and someone is still unhappy, they find a third judge.  The third judge makes the final ruling.

There is no central authority that makes the final ruling, there is just the free market of arbitration services that make the ruling in the manner described above.  In your example you say that the central authority has the final say, and they use force to 'enforce' their judgements.

In Smith's world, there isn't a central authority or even a decentralized authority with the power to use force to enforce its judgements.  It relies on the reputational method.  If someone has two out of three judgements go against them and they are required to 'pay damages', for example, there is no 'brute force collection agency' which comes after the person.  There may be a lien put against their property, and their business partners and contacts will be notified of the judgement.  There is a chance that they may never pay the judgement, but their reputation will take a hit, and so on and so on.

You really should read the book, unless you are strongly wedded to your central authority idea.  Through fiction, Smith will give you a really compelling glimpse into a space where there is a market for dispute resolution.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

I specifically used the words "physical force" so that know equivocations could be made about my meaning!

So then what's the point of your statement? There's a difference between force in the abstract idea that we use in discussion and that in the realm of physics. So what?

If you steal from me and I tell you "give the money back or I'll kick your ass" that is an example of coercion through physical force. But, it is not a violation of the NAP and it is not "criminal."

No. The only physical force you used was to create vibrations in the air through your words...and then my eardrums felt those shockwaves. So why are we talking about physical forces again? What's your point?

This is exactly what I would expect a protection company to do for me as a client and exactly what I would want a Libertarian government to do for it's citizens (but hopefully in a more efficient manner).

Government is anything but efficient. Your "hope" is hopelessly misplaced. For reference please look at the history of any government ever.

I would not want any mandatory taxes or subsidies or licensing laws or a federal reserve or drug laws or any regulation of free trade through mutual consent whatsoever!

No taxes? Then no government. Just a company, or a coop of some sort. Extracting "protection money" is what makes it government. Otherwise it's just voluntary cooperation.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

No taxes? Then no government. Just a company, or a coop of some sort. Extracting "protection money" is what makes it government. Otherwise it's just voluntary cooperation.

I am actually in the midst of writing a book on this. The main point is that a justified government should only use force against those who have initiated it's use. For example, those who lose lawsuits would need to pay the court costs; those who resisted the police force would have to pay the police costs; countries who attacked our country would have to pay reparations. Since these are the only functions of a justified government, this plan, if executed correctly, would eliminate the need for any taxes. Voluntary donations and voluntary services would be accepted, but never mandatory.

(There are some difficult questions, like what to do if the criminal is penniless, but those require more than just a short post to answer.)

It is helpful for me to hear your arguments though, because you are much more passionate about Anarchism than I am and can, therefore, make some points that I would not have thought of.