From: sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:32:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.211230.17956@cbnews.cb.att.com>  
lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
> Note followups.
I'm not Perry Metzger, but I would like to answer Mr. Cipriani's  
questions.
> 
> In article <1993Jan22.003417.12715@shearson.com>  
pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> >lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
> >
> >>People want to be secure in their persons and property, among other  
things.
> >>Anarchy does not and cannot offer this.  People value something which
> >>anarchy cannot offer.  People prefer something which is not perfect,  
but
> >>is better in their view than anarchy.
> >
> >I believe you are operating on a false premise, which is that security
> >can only be provided by a monopoly provisioner, i.e. the government.
> 
> You're talking about the "executive" function of gov't.  There's more
> to it than that; in particular you said nothing about the legislative
> branch.  Eventually your "protection agencies" or whatever you want
> will come to a irreconcilable difference concerning law, e.g., my
> favorite such difference, is or is not late term abortion murder ?  I
> don't want to get into an abortion thread, please.  Just pointing out
> that folks whose views are pro-abortion will hire a protection agency
> to protect abortion clinics, and folks whose views are anti-abortion
> may well hire a protection agency to wage war against abortion clinics.
> 
If they did so then they would most likely be forced to come to some sort  
of compromise or true either through the threat of mutal destruction or  
because the neutrals would get tires of the war.
> >Now, I'm not an anarchist-socialist like most of the people you've
> >been conversing with -- I'm an anarchocapitalist. I believe that
> >security services can and should be provided by the free market. As
> >evidence that this can work, I cite the case of Iceland, which
> >operated perfectly well with only private methods for settling
> >disputes from ~900AD to 1252AD, which is longer than any western
> >government I know of has lasted.
> 
> Why are you only looking at western governments ?
Because the history of eastern governments has primarily been that of  
authoritian governments.If anarchist government had existed records have  
been suppressed. BTW you could also look at Ireland for examples> 
> >Now, the arguments for why I believe the private sector could provide
> >security services and the evidence for it are rather long and
> >involved, but I'm happy to go into great detail if you like.
> 
> No thanks, Perry.  I've read Friedman's book on the subject, and frankly
> I'm not very impressed.  It's just a lot of hand waving, a theory of
> everything and nothing.
Friedman's book, while not all hand-waving, isn't the best source of  
information. Friedman cowrote a book on Medevial Iceland which is supposed  
to be good, but for more specific and modern arguments Randy Barnett makes  
very good arguments. He's had articles in the Columiba Law Review I could  
try and find the citations if you're interested.
> 
> >Ah, but anarchy, or at least my kind, is not the same as a situation
> >where people are not forced to be accountable for their actions. It
> >would merely imply that people would be held accountable for their
> >actions without a monopoly provider of this service -- it does not
> >mean that this service would not be provided by the marketplace at
> >all.
> 
> Who makes the law ?  It doesn't come down from a mountain on stone
> tablets these days.
> 
Most modern criminal law evolved from common law which did not use  
government legislation. Law evolved through the decisions of judges who  
originally had no government power to enforce his decisions. The  
enforcement instead came privately.
> >I would strongly agree that without deterrents to crime society
> >would degenerate into chaos -- but I am not proposing that society do
> >without such deterrents, only that it do without a government.
> 
> Who defines what a crime is ?
Crimes were defined very well through the common law. Hogge's Origins of  
Common Law is a decent source although it doesn't go back far enough in  
history.
> 
> >No, I believe they might try -- but they also try under government.
>> >Again, as I have noted, there is no reason to assume that an
> >appropriately structured anarchy could not provide for deterrents
> >to crime without the need for a government.
> 
> If protection agencies enjoy economies of scale eventually there will
> be an oligarchy; which is no big improvement over what we already have.
An oligarchy?? Similar to the oligarchy of restaurents or grocery stores.  
Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the facts.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns