From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Anarcho-objectivism (was Re: Thoughts on the group)
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:52:33 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>>>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>>
>>>[anarchism vis a vis objectivism]
>>>The first problem anarchism always runs into is that of social
>>>stability, especially when dealing with large enough systems
>>>that iterated prisoner's dilemmas become inapplicable.  When
>>>combined with an ethical system based on selfishness, it becomes
>>>incumbent to show why many people in the society wouldn't turn
>>>to use of force; there would be no external constraints, and
>>>few internal ones (you can't guarantee everyone would want to
>>>have the same non-coercive goals as yourself).
>>>
>>>I haven't seen this done, though that doesn't mean it can't be.
>
>>Iceland, 900AD to 1252AD. Three hundred fifty two years seems stable
>>enough for me.
>
>I don't think it satisfies the size constraint.  A seller of
>snake oil in one part of the island couldn't make a profitable
>living moving from one village to another for very long, I would
>think (what was the population of Iceland then, anyway?).

Modern technology has created similar institutional memories in our
society at large. Fraud is a whole lot harder to commit in the modern
world -- newspaper databases, credit ratings, etc, all come back to
haunt you. I'm not so sure we have that much to orry about.

>>Now, here we have a really interesting question. For some reason, Mr.
>>Holt believes that although a free market vendor of protection
>>services would have "no external constraints", a government purveyor
>>of those services would.
>
>Do you really think that a protection agency is subject to the
>same kinds of constraints and accountability as a government?

No. I think the government has very poor restraints on it -- I think
the constraints and accountability of a private agency would be far
greater and much more meaningful. Thats why I would prefer such a
system.

>To be sure, there are mafia-style governments,

The overwhelming bulk of the world lives under such governments. Ours
and those of western europe are the aberant ones, covering prehaps a
half billion people. Even so, its not clear that these aberant ones
are particularly stable -- look at the history of France even since
World War II, for example.

>but they don't
>seem to work very well in industrialized nations.

Oh? Gone to China lately?

>Who would
>a mafia-style protection agency be accountable to? 

More significantly, where would they get customers? They can't just
intimidate people into signing up -- they might go to another agency
which would then be obligated to defend them. Its likely the market
forces would destroy attempts to turn protection agencies into
protection rackets. Certainly a few might surivive -- but look at the
fact that most of the world lives under dictatorship and similar
horrors right now, and the notion that a small percent of security
companies might go renegade looks tame by comparison.

>I assume
>the shareholders (not the customers); so what motive would it
>have to "release" customers to go to another company?

They couldn't hold them. Security companies don't have territorial
monopolies. You can just cross the street and say "Joe's company won't
let me out of my contract. Here is my money; I want to sign up with
you." Its hard to stop such things.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.