From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:36:11 GMT

lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>Note followups.
>
>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.

I am not merely talking about the executive function. The "legislative
function" is also handled under the system I propose. The system I
propose would not be conducive to the production of large volumes of
"legislation", but I would refer to that as a feature, not a bug.

>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 ?

Abortion is not a tort, so it would not and could not be made illegal
under the system I propose. I consider this a feature, you may
consider this to be a bug. A system of privately produced law such as
I favor would only deal with torts between competant individuals --
victimless crimes and crimes against animals or the "unborn" and the
like would not have any legal sanctions associated with them in such a
system.

>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.

I doubt this would happen. Its much more likely that the anti-choice
people could not find anyone to wage wars against such clinics, as no
security agency would find that there was a tort being committed
against the anti-choice people. Lacking standing they could probably
not find anyone willing to interceed on their behalf.

>>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 ?

Well, largely because my knowledge of non-western governments is
limited. I do know that no Chinese imperial dynasties lasted terribly
long by my standards, and that none of the various forms of government
in the Japanese Islands lasted terribly long, either. For all I know,
some governments somewhere in recent centuries lasted longer -- I'm
insufficiently well informed. However, I believe that the comparison
with western governments is illustrative.

>>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.

I'd say that you are doing the book an injustice -- it isn't intended
to be a scholarly work. On the other hand, have you read Bruce
Benson's book, "The Enterprise of Law"? Its hardly handwaving -- its
one of the most scholarly texts I have seen in a while. Its
exquisitely well documented -- footnotes, references and all.

>>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.

Everyone and no one. You are used to the notion, comparitively recent,
that law is produced by decree. In fact, customary or common law can
also function.

Take, as an example, the modern commercial law. I bet you didn't
realize that it is a direct descendant of a customary legal code
developed completely without the aid of government. The Lex
Mercatoria, or Law Merchant, was developed over several centuries in
merchant courts at the trade fairs of medieval Europe, without any
government intervention or law enforcement being involved. Ever
endorse a check? If you have, you are following a practice developed
under the Lex Mercatoria.

>>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 ?

There would not, per se, be crimes -- only civil torts. It would be up
to arbitration courts, selected by agreement of the parties to the
case and operating under codes pre-agreed to by the parties.

>>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.

I would tend to disagree -- the existance of hundreds of agencies
operating under a completely differently structured legal paradigm
would, in my opinion, be an extraordinary improvement.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns