The Necessity of Central Authority

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

What would happen without any central authority?

Many people are aware of the destructive power of central authority and some decide that it is altogether worthless as a result. Yet, it does have one redeeming factor.

First, let’s analyze an anarchist society. Many people would find it difficult to defend themselves through personal physical force anytime they faced a dispute with another. These people would likely hire others to protect them so that they could lead their lives in relative peace. This tendency would likely lead to large companies who’s purpose is the protection of their clients. There would be competition among these companies so they would likely be more efficient than government at achieving this goal.

However, what would occur when a dispute arises between the clients of two of these large companies. Each company would seek to protect their client or risk losing their credibility. In the interest of the client claiming harm done, his company would likely attempt to force the other party into compensation. The company of the other party would attempt to protect him from this use of force. A "battle" would likely ensue until one side is victorious, as refraining from such a fight would constitute failure for the side claiming harm. Such a battle would cause to great violence and destruction.

This scenario clarifies the benefit of a centralized authority as an arbiter. The mess could be avoided altogether by the employment of a powerful centralized authority to resolve all disputes involving physical force. Obviously, this would lead to other problems that must be taken into consideration, such as the difficulty of limiting the power of such an entity. Still, it’s role as an arbiter is a very worthy one.

What is the cause of this distinction in the case of protection, or authority, from the usual efficiency found in free market? Why can't people settle disputes without any centralized arbiter? It is inherent in the use of force that free market principles cannot be applicable. In true free market, every transaction is made with the consent of both parties, meaning that both parties expect to benefit from it. On the other hand, a transaction that results from the use of coercion is made at the expense of one party for the benefit of another. This distinction becomes clear if the previous senario is considered on a larger scale in a longer period of time. After each “battle” one side is victorious, while the other suffers. This is inherent in any transaction resulting from force. After many such battles, the sides that are most often victorious will continually become more powerful; the others will become more irrelevant. Ultimately, one company will be by far the most powerful and all others relatively irrelevant.

This process has been illustrated repeatedly throughout history up until the current state of society. In fact, it existed even before man in the pack structure of wolves and other animals. It has thus been both logically and empirically proven that the natural path of authority is towards central rule. This is a direct result of the nature of coercive transactions, that there must be one winner and one loser.

With this knowledge, it is easy to understand why free market principles of competition and efficiency cannot be applied to coercion. There is a reason that governments have had a monopoly on physical force throughout history. It is not necessarily a bad thing for power to be centralized, so long as that power is used for protection against, not for the initiation of, physical force. However, such a centralized power has rarely, if ever, existed in the history of man.

Obviously, it would be nice if physical force was never used between men. Yet, this is not the case in reality and will never be the case. Unfortunately, the best way to deal with this evil is through a limited centralized authority.


If you enjoyed this post, or just want to argue, check out my blog: MostlyLibertarian.com

[Josh D]

What would happen without any central authority?

...

This process has been illustrated repeatedly throughout history up until the current state of society. In fact, it existed even before man in the pack structure of wolves and other animals. It has thus been both logically and empirically proven that the natural path of authority is towards central rule. This is a direct result of the nature of coercive transactions, that there must be one winner and one loser.

...

MostlyLibertarian.com

It has not been proven either logically or empirically that the natural path of authority is towards central rule.  I think you may be arguing that the ratio of the number of governments to the number of the governed is getting smaller.  That may be true.  We live in an age where there are hundreds of millions of people under a central authority, while previously in human history the maximum number of people under a central authority or central rule could be measured only in the hundreds not in the hundreds of millions.

However, it's not hard to find counterfactual examples that argue against your claim:  the breakup of the Ottoman empire, the breakup of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.  At different times in the last 200 years, rule has been centralized and decentralized at varying speeds and directions.  I would caution you against making a claim that something is proven.  In my opinion, the jury is still out.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

Large empires tended to fall apart before the dramatic improvement in communication technologies over the past few centuries.

Still, you're right to some extent. I have not proven that authority will always become more centralized over time. I have merely provided a logical explanation for the empirical evidence that this has been the usual trend throughout human history. In addition, I assert that this logic can be used to both understand and predict the natural tendencies of arbitrary societies.

What I have just described is just the scientific method.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

However, what would occur when a dispute arises between the clients of two of these large companies. Each company would seek to protect their client or risk losing their credibility. In the interest of the client claiming harm done, his company would likely attempt to force the other party into compensation. The company of the other party would attempt to protect him from this use of force. A "battle" would likely ensue until one side is victorious, as refraining from such a fight would constitute failure for the side claiming harm. Such a battle would cause to great violence and destruction.

I disagree. In addition to protecting their clients, each company has an incentive to preserve itself. The profit maximizing firm can't afford to fight a war over a stolen TV or a drunken bar fight. These competing firms have incentives to set up channels between one another where they can negotiate and resolve the disputes, compare facts and draw a conclusion.

This scenario clarifies the benefit of a centralized authority as an arbiter. The mess could be avoided altogether by the employment of a powerful centralized authority to resolve all disputes involving physical force. Obviously, this would lead to other problems that must be taken into consideration, such as the difficulty of limiting the power of such an entity. Still, it’s role as an arbiter is a very worthy one.

The role of a powerful single arbiter doesn't work now. Loads of examples...I assume you haven't actually tried to use the legal system to get restitution have you?

I could just as easily turn your first paragraph against you and argue that any time a someone killed a citizen of another state, we should anticipate an all out war....It's just not correct.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

I never said that every time a dispute occurred there would be "all out war." This will not happen until a dispute arises consequential enough that winning it is worth fighting for. Your example of wars between nations is a very good example. Almost every country on the planet is at war with some other country over some dispute or another. And many of these wars are between countries separated by vast oceans, where a serious effort must be employed just to come into contact with each other.

You assume that the incentive for companies would always be to resolve disputes peacefully, but that is not always the case. What if a company's most valuable client is defrauded by the client of another company? Suppose that the other company asserts that no fraud took place. The first company would have a great incentive to fight; otherwise, it would almost certainly lose it's most valuable client and possibly go out of business as a result. The second company would also have a great incentive to fight as they see the efforts of the first company as an active attempt to rob their client. The more sincere and objective the companies' beliefs, the more earnestly they will fight to protect them.

[Josh D]

Large empires tended to fall apart before the dramatic improvement in communication technologies over the past few centuries.

Still, you're right to some extent. I have not proven that authority will always become more centralized over time. I have merely provided a logical explanation for the empirical evidence that this has been the usual trend throughout human history. In addition, I assert that this logic can be used to both understand and predict the natural tendencies of arbitrary societies.

What I have just described is just the scientific method.

If you want to insult a scientist you can always praise the paucity of their data. 

What you have described (as far as I can tell in the your last few posts) is not the scientific method, but a method which takes an assumption and looks for data to support it.  When conflicting data is mentioned this method relies on special pleading to show that the new data doesn't invalidate the original assumption.

It's possible that your assumptions are right, but they are certainly not burdened down with overwhelming evidence.

As far as I'm concerned you haven't proven any centralizing trend.  You might, however,  find some support in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.  Have you read that?

[Anonymous Infowarrior]

I remember reading something that answered the question you asked here. I can't quite remember what it was called but it's somewhere on the internet. Basically, a "battle" would probably cost a lot more money than it is worth to just suck it up and pay the compensation. Obviously, though, there would still be the occasional problem, but no system is perfect.

[Josh D]

You assume that the incentive for companies would always be to resolve disputes peacefully, but that is not always the case. ... (Example Here)

It seems to me that in this post you are saying that you can imagine a situation where a large company would declare war on another large company.

You seem to be implying that the Company vs. Company war you are imagining would be less likely to happen if there was a central authority (global government?) in charge of dispute resolution.

I don't think I'm going to be able to successfully argue against this claim.  I'm worried that if I describe a situation where a market for dispute resolution makes company vs. company wars less likely, you will imagine a different scenario where the war would happen anyway.

I'm going to give you some credit for having a very active and productive imagination.  I think almost any imaginary scenario I describe will be immediately countered by an imaginary scenario of your own.  I'm not good at having imaginary arguments, so I'm going to decline to participate in this one.  Thank you for understanding.  If it makes you feel any better, you can consider yourself (with my permission) to be the winner of this argument.

(I just reread my post, and it sounds like I'm being a condescending prick.  I apologize for any offense caused, and take full responsibility for my rhetorical style.  Good day, sir.)

[JustSayNoToStatism]

I never said that every time a dispute occurred there would be "all out war." This will not happen until a dispute arises consequential enough that winning it is worth fighting for. Your example of wars between nations is a very good example. Almost every country on the planet is at war with some other country over some dispute or another. And many of these wars are between countries separated by vast oceans, where a serious effort must be employed just to come into contact with each other.

Ok. So at least we've established that states fight wars. So any improvement we could get with a stateless society is welcomed, even if it's not perfect.

You assume that the incentive for companies would always be to resolve disputes peacefully, but that is not always the case.

It is always the case. They want to resolve it peacefully. Sometimes it might not. But anarchism is better than statism in this sense, because at least people bear the consequences of the wars they wage.

What if a company's most valuable client is defrauded by the client of another company? Suppose that the other company asserts that no fraud took place. The first company would have a great incentive to fight; otherwise, it would almost certainly lose it's most valuable client and possibly go out of business as a result.

So it could lose its best customer....or it could compensate its best customer (serving a dual function as an insurance provider).
It surely wouldn't want to fight, because everyone else is going to abandon the firm and then it will certainly die. Better to risk losing business than lose it with certainty.

[MostlyLibertarian.com]

First of all, you cannot use the free market argument in a situation involving physical coercion. This was the point of my original post. When you say that it's ok, because only they will experience the consequences of their own actions, you are wrong. Often, one of the companies will be justified in fighting, while the other one is misguided. In such a case, the justified company would face the consequences at no fault of it's own.

Second, they are more likely to be abandoned for not fighting. If I were a client of the company that gave in, I would probably fear a similar thing happening to me and switch to a better company; I'm not stupid! And, neither are the other clients.

Third, if it merely compensates it's customer it is only encouraging further theft! Now, everyone knows that they can steal from the clients of this company and it will do nothing to retaliate!

[JustSayNoToStatism]

First of all, you cannot use the free market argument in a situation involving physical coercion. This was the point of my original post. When you say that it's ok, because only they will experience the consequences of their own actions, you are wrong.

Obviously not EVERYTHING is a result of your own actions. Some things are obviously out of your control (whether meteors fall and destroy your property). The point is that you don't have taxpayers funding wars who can't STOP funding it. The people deciding to wage wars have to pay its costs, and take the risks. As opposed to now, when the people deciding to wage them only reap the benefits, and pay none of the costs. That's how anarchism beats statism.

Often, one of the companies will be justified in fighting, while the other one is misguided. In such a case, the justified company would face the consequences at no fault of it's own.

That company should have worked to set up dispute resolution channels with the other one. Phone companies compete with one another, but they need to be compatible with other companies. Verizon people need to be able to call those with US cellular. Likewise, DROs need to be able to provide people with dispute resolution and contract law when interacting with other DROs. This really isn't that complicated.

Second, they are more likely to be abandoned for not fighting.

No. I really don't think you understand the consequences of a war. If you start a war, your clients will not renew next months contract.

If I were a client of the company that gave in, I would probably fear a similar thing happening to me and switch to a better company; I'm not stupid! And, neither are the other clients.

Your client isn't always on the right side of this. If after comparing the facts, your client was in the wrong, you can't take down your whole company just because he's a thief. "Giving in" will need to happen, or else the marginal costs for that firm will skyrocket.