|
posted by dennisn on December 4th, 2011 at 9:27AM
Was there a question in your first paragraph? Yea, you kinda seem to get the idea. I think you might be missing the power these private voluntary services would have -- they would probably be connected to each other to form all kinds of networks, so you would be highly incentivized to join at least one, otherwise you would probably be ostracized quite significantly. (They could reasonably be expected not to do business with people who aren't subscribed to any arbitration service, etc.) Either way, what is considered legal would probably be quite explicitly written in a contract -- probably far more explicitly than the vague subjective contradictory crap we call "The Law" in the current monopoly system. (Because there would be voluntary competition to make the most efficient/clearest arbitration service / set of laws.)
Regarding your second paragraph, it comes from a book:
http://board.freedomainra...ular-ethics.aspx
Regarding your last sentence, yes, conflict will inevitably arise. We are simply talking about the best way to manage this conflict. Violent monopoly services are not it, IMHO. (I guess you still think they are? Even though you haven't really explored any alternatives.) |
posted by dsk on December 8th, 2011 at 8:04PM
>Violent monopoly services are not it, IMHO.
Actually, you're guaranteeing violent conflict. No universal laws, implies everyone has specific set of laws and nuances in mind. In cases of disagreement, because of no universal police force, the person with the biggest muscle/gun/gang simply wins.
In fact, a Mafia-type government is exactly what one would expect to occur under anarchy.
|
posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2011 at 12:16AM
I'm not sure what you mean by "wins" -- it can be anything ranging from peacefully ostracizing the "losers" from services, to physically enforced segragation, to violent bloody conquest. My gut tells me you're still brainwashed by statist propaganda, so you reactively jump to the most absurd scenario -- that disagreeing insurance companies will begin slaughtering each other. My speculation is that they would find it far more profitable to resolve disputes more elegantly.
Also, we have to be clear what we mean by "universal law" -- depending on the size of the jurisdiction (neighbourhood / city / region / continent), there may very well be governing bodies. Obviously, given such a pluralist population, you can expect a lot of complexity and grey.
But, you don't need to think everything out to the end, in order to make improvements right now. (Not that that's even possible.) So, for example, nothing is stopping doctors from collectively acknowledging that their funding methods are evil, and changing them to voluntary alternatives.
|
posted by dsk on December 9th, 2011 at 3:07PM
To reiterate, the notion that the strongest always win under Anarchy, is THE reason why I cannot embrace it. It's a deal-breaker. So if under Anarchy I am forced to live under the rule of the strongest, Anarchy is no different to me than any authoritarian system - it's all just semantics.
|
|
posted by dsk on December 9th, 2011 at 2:44PM
>Also, we have to be clear what we mean by "universal law"
"Universal" in the sense that it isn't opt-out. Anarchy only provides for "laws" that are voluntarily adhered to, which doesn't really make them "laws". For example, in cases of disputes, you either talk it out, or maybe you both (voluntarily) submit to binding arbitration, or maybe one party simply acquiesces to the other. All these options are actually available to people in present society and in fact, they are frequently used.
The problem occurs when the disputing parties are at such odds, that they will not voluntarily submit to binding arbitration. So under anarchy, if voluntary binding arbitration doesn't work, what's the alternative? The alternative is force. If you feel wronged because the person you lent money to isn't paying you back, then you take it back by force. On the other side, if someone is trying to extract money from you who you feel is not entitled to, you use force to prevent him from doing so. And what if you're a thief whose also the strongest (biggest muscles/gun/gang)? Then under Anarchy, you win every argument. Again under anarchy .. the strongest win every argument.
A universal judicial system/police force is there to prevent this occurrence. It's sole reason for existence is to remove the force option from personal dealings - so the strong and the weak are on equal footing. In our system, when all else fails an objective third-party (i.e. court) enforces a settlement, and the parties cannot use violent means to get around it - because the police/army is always stronger.
This is not an extreme example. This is a structural problem with Anarchy. Think about it this way, EVERY SOCIETY IN EXISTENCE STARTED AS AN ANARCHY ... but then quickly devolved into some sort of authoritarian rule. Anarchy creates a power vacuum that quickly gets filled by the strongest who then enforce THEIR rules and then you're left with an authoritarian system. Mafia is one example of a way this power vacuum can be filled. So Anarchy is inherently unstable.
Think about it, say we live under Anarchy, I believe in getting compensated for my music, you don't. There's really no way we can come to an agreement, you won't pay. Say I'm stronger than you are. If you pirate my work and not pay, I can just come and kick the shit out of you until you stop. What's your recourse?
Mexican gangs routinely kill bloggers who report on their murders - do you think that would change if there was no police force/army to protect free speech rights? It would be worse. Your free speech "rights" would only be applicable if the strongest allow you to practice them.
On the other hand, a capitalist-libertarian/minarchist starts with an authoritarian government and limits its power via objective universal laws.
|
|
|
|
