From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:34:17 GMT

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.

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.

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. I could,
for instance, repost an article I posted recently to
alt.philosophy.objectivism on this very subject.

Again, I'd like to emphasize that I have great differences with the
anarchosocialists in this discussion, but that does not mean that I
disagree with the premise that government is unneeded -- although I
would use arguments that they would largely disagree with!

>It's not the lack of government which is the source of immorality.
>It's what happens when people realize they can get away with just
>about anything and not be punished for it.  That's the way a lot of
>people are.

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. 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.

>>It would seem that anarchy (at least my baloney utopic unrealistic idea of
>>it) would make everybody on the same side.
>
>What a joke.
>
>Do you think Croations will forgive and forget what Serbians did to
>them ?  And vice versa.

No. And I would agree that the thought that anarchy would put everyone
"on the same side" is unrealistic. However, I am constrained to point
out that in the existing statist order of things the Serbs and Croats
are killing each other. I doubt that anarchy could be any worse, and I
suspect that it would be far better in so far as it might have
successfully deterred the situation. In any case, however, lets agree
that utopia is not possible and that even under government certain
kinds of "melt downs" can occur. The only valid question is whether in
an anarchy such situations would be more or less prevalent -- and I
would argue that "less" is the correct answer.

>Do you honestly believe that anti-abortion fanatics would not harass
>patrons of an abortion clinic in your anarchy ?  That's really quite funny.

No, I believe they might try -- but they also try under government.
The question is only whether abortion clinics would have more or less
protection in an anarchy, and I would argue that, provided the bulk of
the population at least weakly supported abortion, which is more or
less the situation now, the clinics would be better protected in an
anarchocapitalist society. However, I must point out that you can
never protect people in a society that is largely turned against them
-- for instance, axe murderers have a hard time of it. Were the
overwhelming bulk of the populace to believe that abortionists are as
bad as axe murderers (and the radical anti-abortion people believe
this), you could not protect them effectively in ANY system. This is
unfortunate, but it is a fact of life and one must accept it.

>Do you think anti-pornography fanatics would not firebomb a dirty book
>store ?

They might try, but again, I suspect that an anarchocapitalist system
such as the one I would propose would provide effective deterrents.

>Do you think anti-gay fanatics would not bash gays violently ?

See above.

>That these acts are done even under the threat of punishment tells me
>that it would be a lot worse if there was no punishement.

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.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy