Do Anarchists Enforce a Lack of Government?

[dpalme]

While that sounds nice (I'd take it over the hell we have today), it's not stable. Those police officers wouldn't be able to feed their families (at least not where I live, not much crime), or even themselves alone.

[Josh D]

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.

You should read The Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill.  It would probably put to bed your fears that without a global government, large companies would declare war on each other. 

http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf

[LegesNullae]

You seem to be saying that this "government" of yours can only use violence against those who have already used violence against others. That doesn't make it a government at all, but a voluntary collective of people willing to protect each other. Benjamin Tucker, a late 19th/early 20th century anarchist, wrote on this subject:

"Government has been defined...as the subjection of the non-invasive individual to a will not his own. The subjection of the invasive individual is not government, but resistance to and protection from government.

Tucker continues:

"Government is invasion, and the State...is the embodiment of invasion in an individual, or band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area. The Anarchists are opposed to all government, and especially to the State as the worst governor and chief invader."

[JustSayNoToStatism]

The other members have said it....you are not describing a government. Even if you insist on calling it that, we still classify you as an anarchist. No taxation, governance. Others have come before you and started the exact same discussion here. Mostly it's people afraid of the word anarchism. Do you understand that anarchism includes and accepts voluntary coops as you have described? There's nothing statist about it. Do you consider yourself a patriotic american? If so, I suspect that's your main obstacle. I bet you still feel drawn to the flag, and so want to call it government. I could be totally off base, so don't take offense...I'm just telling you about the people who've argued for this on DA before.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

I have no problem with the word Anarchism, but what I'm suggesting is not "voluntary." Those who disagreed with this "government," or whatever you wish to call it (I prefer "central authority"), would still be forced to obey it's laws.

The difference between this central authority and any government that exists today is that none of it's laws are in violation of the NAP; they are all responses to aggression, never initiations of it.


Why is this such a difficult concept for some of you to understand?

[dpalme]

Why is this such a difficult concept for some of you to understand?

Because it's not government. I'm not forced at gunpoint to pay for anything unless I do something wrong. Watch these three videos, it's essentially what you're talking about.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmMpgVNc6Y" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmMpgVNc6Y</a>

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

Fine, don't call it government then. Call it a "central authority." I really don't care what it's called. The point is just that it is an institution that forces it's laws on everyone within a certain territory.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Fine, don't call it government then. Call it a "central authority." I really don't care what it's called. The point is just that it is an institution that forces it's laws on everyone within a certain territory.

The claim to own law-making rights over an entire geographic area is the potential problem. But since you said none of the "laws" are violations of freedom, then I can assume I wouldn't ever interact with this so-called "authority."

[Josh D]

I have no problem with the word Anarchism, but what I'm suggesting is not "voluntary." Those who disagreed with this "government," or whatever you wish to call it (I prefer "central authority"), would still be forced to obey it's laws.

The difference between this central authority and any government that exists today is that none of it's laws are in violation of the NAP; they are all responses to aggression, never initiations of it.


Why is this such a difficult concept for some of you to understand?

As far as I can tell, your central authority only has one law:  You must not initiate force against others.  If that is the extent of your central authority, then I don't have a problem with it.  However, built into your central authority is a weird jealous enforcement mechanism.  Let me explain where I think the problem is.

If someone is violating the non aggression principle then your central authority would step in and use force to get the violator to stop initiating aggression.  So far, I don't think any anarchists would have a problem with that.  However in order for your central authority to be a central authority it has to be the exclusive arbiter, or the supreme arbiter.  So it's possible to imagine a scenario where someone is initiating force against someone else, and some bystanders step in to try and intervene.  They might help evict an unruly customer from the premises or use some other method to protect against an aggressor.  As long as your central authority sits back and chills out, allowing the situation to be resolved by those on the scene then it really isn't a central authority at all.  However if it tries to intervene to be the exclusive enforcer of the NAP, we have a problem.

One additional problem with your central authority is that you have stopped thinking about things at the level of the individual, and now you are committing an error of lumping people into collectives.  This error of thought is evident when you were describing two corporations going to war in another thread.  Companies or authorities don't really exist as entities.  They are simply groups of individuals.  Violations of the non aggression principle happen at the level of the individual, not at the level of the collective.  If you have individuals in your central authority who take it upon themselves to step in and prevent others from acting as peace officers, then you have a problem, and by definition your central authority is made up of people who are violating the non aggression principle.

Hope that helps.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

If someone is violating the non aggression principle then your central authority would step in and use force to get the violator to stop initiating aggression.  So far, I don't think any anarchists would have a problem with that.  However in order for your central authority to be a central authority it has to be the exclusive arbiter, or the supreme arbiter.  So it's possible to imagine a scenario where someone is initiating force against someone else, and some bystanders step in to try and intervene.  They might help evict an unruly customer from the premises or use some other method to protect against an aggressor.  As long as your central authority sits back and chills out, allowing the situation to be resolved by those on the scene then it really isn't a central authority at all.  However if it tries to intervene to be the exclusive enforcer of the NAP, we have a problem.

^Really good observation.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

If someone is violating the non aggression principle then your central authority would step in and use force to get the violator to stop initiating aggression.  So far, I don't think any anarchists would have a problem with that.  However in order for your central authority to be a central authority it has to be the exclusive arbiter, or the supreme arbiter. 

The central authority would not necessarily step in. The system is based on lawsuits. If nobody attempts to sue the aggressor through the justice system of the central authority then it is unlikely that anything will be done. In some cases it may step in without any lawsuit being brought, as there are cases where the people harmed are unable to bring a lawsuit (e.g. they're dead or kidnapped).

Also, it doesn't have to be the "exclusive" protector, just the "final" arbiter. Nothing should be done to prevent people from seeking private assistance in dealing with such problems. Such actions are not initiations of violence and, therefore, do not fall under the domain of the central authority. However, if these attempts are unsuccessful or result in unjust violence, the central authority may step.

Finally, I am well aware of the very human characteristics of the people running this central authority. There is no reason to believe that they should be any less fallible or self serving than anyone else. For this reason, incentives should be provided for enforcing the NAP correctly. This can be done through a combination of democracy-like input from the people and very strict guidelines for the proper functioning of every part of the central authority. Ultimately, it must be acknowledged that mistakes will occur on occasion and that the morality of the people will play a role. If an overwhelming fraction of people refuse to follow, or are unable to understand, the NAP, then the system will not be very successful. Still, it may be better than Anarchism under similar conditions.

[Josh D]

Mostly,

You are really close to the L. Neil Smith, probability broach solution.  If someone goes to the your central authority, and the central authority makes a ruling.  Would you have a problem if after the central authority ruling is made, both parties contract a different arbitration corporation for assistance.  Let's pretend that the other arbitration authority comes up with a different ruling.  Would that be OK for you?  If it's fine, then your central authority isn't the final authority.  If it isn't fine, then your central authority would have to initiate force to see its ruling take effect.  If that's the case, then your central authority would violate the NAP.  Not cool.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

If they both agree then they can do whatever the hell they want! The central authority is only there to resolve disputes.

Now, if they agree to use a private arbitrator and then one of them decides not to obey the judgement, the central authority may need to step in. Still, it would only do so if one party brought charges.

[Josh D]

If they both agree then they can do whatever the hell they want! The central authority is only there to resolve disputes.

Now, if they agree to use a private arbitrator and then one of them decides not to obey the judgement, the central authority may need to step in. Still, it would only do so if one party brought charges.

In a market based system, if someone brings suit against someone else in a case that isn't cut and dry, and the person being sued refuses to participate in arbitration, there isn't really anything further you can do without violating the non aggression principle.  That's basically the end of the story.  You've said previously that your central authority wouldn't violate the non aggression principle, so It can't be the central authority.

Imagine a case where you have a landlord and a tenant.  The tenant skips out on his last month's rent, and leaves the apartment in shambles.  The landlord tries to get the tenant into arbitration so that the dispute can be settled.  The tenant claims that he paid the rent and the apartment was in pristine condition.  The tenant refuses to argue their case in front of any authority, central or otherwise.

What is your central authority going to do?

Nothing, without violating the non aggression principle.  The CA (central authority) can't force the tenant to appear in court.  The CA can't make a judgement without the participation of the tenant and then take some of the tenants stuff to give to the landlord as compensation.  Either of those things violates the non aggression principle.

Without your central authority stepping in and using force to enforce a judgement against someone who didn't participate in the process, your central authority is neither central nor an authority.

You said that the central authority is only there to resolve disputes.  That isn't true if, as you say in the next sentence, "the central authority may need to step in" (to enforce judgements). 

There are circumstances where judgements can be rendered without the participation of one of the parties.  If someone was mugged and the mugging was caught on tape, for example.  The book I mentioned earlier in the thread outlines a workable way to handle both the landlord / tenant dispute and the mugger claim without the need for a central authority.

It seems like you have a commitment to nonviolence.  You also have a commitment, in theory, to a central authority which, in your words "is an institution that forces it's laws on everyone within a certain territory."  If your commitment to nonviolence is stronger than your commitment to this theoretical quasi-governmental authority, then we can be friends, and I'll invite you to my next chili cook-off.  If your commitment to the idealized non-voluntary dispute resolution mechanism you call the central authority is greater than your commitment to nonviolence, we can not be friends, and I'd prefer it if you stay away from me and my family.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

First of all, when is your next chili cook-off? (kidding)

You said that the landlord is unwilling to testify. If the landlord is unwilling to bring a lawsuit then nothing will be done.

On the other hand, if the landlord does press charges and the tenant is unwilling to testify then there is no reason for forcing him to do so. Evidence will just be brought against him by the landlord without his bringing any defense. He may win or he may lose. He will only be informed about the lawsuit brought against him and given the choice of what to do.

After a judgement is made, if the landlord is the winner then the tenant will be forced to compensate him according to the judgement. If the tenant is the winner then the landlord will be forced to compensate him for the unjust harm caused by his untrue, or unsupported, charges.

Where do you see a violation of the NAP by the CA in this scenario?