Anarchy

[Individualist]

What do you think about anarchy? Do we really need to be governed by a state? Why wouldn't capitalism be sufficient in law enforcement?

[Faramir]

I have to admit that I am becoming closer to an anarchist position as I get older.

However, I'm not there yet.

I am still not sure that law enforcement provided by private enterprise would be fair and just (not that governmental law enforcement is perfect). It seems that something like law enforcement that could be bought would be unfavorably balanced towards the wealthy.

But then, we have that already with high price lawyers getting their guilty clients off. I just think a private sector law enforcement scheme would be even more subject to corruption.

I also find it difficult to conceive of a universally accepted legal code under an anarchy. For example if person X has a dog that attacks person Y. Person Y may seek redress through law enforcement company A. But Person X will claim he has chosen to be under the rules of LE company B which does not prosecute for dog bites.

This is an area I have only researched slightly, so I may be missing something. But what I have read so far is "private sector could do a better job of law enforcement" without giving a real solution to why or how.

I have always (well for the past 12 years or so) been a pragmatic libertarian and not an anarchist. But the more I study libertarianism, the closer my pragmatism becomes to anarchy. But it is not there yet.

But I am certainly open to opposing views on this.

[Individualist]

I have to admit that I am becoming closer to an anarchist position as I get older.

However, I'm not there yet.

I am still not sure that law enforcement provided by private enterprise would be fair and just (not that governmental law enforcement is perfect). It seems that something like law enforcement that could be bought would be unfavorably balanced towards the wealthy.

But then, we have that already with high price lawyers getting their guilty clients off. I just think a private sector law enforcement scheme would be even more subject to corruption.

I also find it difficult to conceive of a universally accepted legal code under an anarchy. For example if person X has a dog that attacks person Y. Person Y may seek redress through law enforcement company A. But Person X will claim he has chosen to be under the rules of LE company B which does not prosecute for dog bites.

This is an area I have only researched slightly, so I may be missing something. But what I have read so far is "private sector could do a better job of law enforcement" without giving a real solution to why or how.

I have always (well for the past 12 years or so) been a pragmatic libertarian and not an anarchist. But the more I study libertarianism, the closer my pragmatism becomes to anarchy. But it is not there yet.

But I am certainly open to opposing views on this.

PY would only expect redress from a law enforcement agency that covered dog attacks. Therefore, company A would have to cover them for PY to expect it. PX would have to deal with company A, not his own law enforcement agency. The question here is how company B would respond to company A. Would it defend PX from A's prosecution?

I asked about a similar situation about a year ago, and the answer I got from the anarcho-capitalists was that B would not defend PX.

[Pilgrim]

What do you think about anarchy? Do we really need to be governed by a state? Why wouldn't capitalism be sufficient in law enforcement?

Why do you assume capitalism would be tolerated?

Assuming that, though, remember the child labor laws? Capitalism tried to stall them, it didn't promote them. In fact, the first cases against employers as it pertained to child labor were prosecuted using animal cruelty laws.

[Soyeong]

I'm trying to figure out how an anarchy would last without the inevitable power struggle turning it in a different form of government, likely a dictatorship.

[Individualist]

Why do you assume capitalism would be tolerated?

Assuming that, though, remember the child labor laws? Capitalism tried to stall them, it didn't promote them. In fact, the first cases against employers as it pertained to child labor were prosecuted using animal cruelty laws.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if capitalism would be tolerated in any society? I don't see how that's relevant. I'm not saying people will do what they should do.

Would capitalism be tolerated without a state? Well, first of all, there's no such thing as total capitalism if there's any kind of monopoly in the society, including the state. If, though, the people have decided not to organize themselves and force laborers and property-owners to do what the gang wants, instead of what the owners/market wants, they have already accepted capitalism.

Are you saying that child labor laws are good?

[NeilUnreal]

The last time we started with anarchy, we progressed through tribes, to villages, to cities, to city-states, to nations, to international cooperation.

I predict if we try anarchy again, the same sequence will obtain, with the intervening years coming to be labeled "the dark ages," or "prehistory."

-Neil

[Individualist]

The last time we started with anarchy, we progressed through tribes, to villages, to cities, to city-states, to nations, to international cooperation.

I predict if we try anarchy again, the same sequence will obtain, with the intervening years coming to be labeled "the dark ages," or "prehistory."

-Neil

You're sure we had anarchy before people decided to form gangs?

[Pilgrim]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if capitalism would be tolerated in any society? I don't see how that's relevant. I'm not saying people will do what they should do.

It sounded like your assumption was that in an anarchy, capitalism would be the rule of thumb. That's far from a given.

Would capitalism be tolerated without a state? Well, first of all, there's no such thing as total capitalism if there's any kind of monopoly in the society, including the state. If, though, the people have decided not to organize themselves and force laborers and property-owners to do what the gang wants, instead of what the owners/market wants, they have already accepted capitalism.

Are you saying that child labor laws are good?

Yes. I am saying they are good. And that capitlalism with out regulation worked in opposition to them.

[Individualist]

It sounded like your assumption was that in an anarchy, capitalism would be the rule of thumb. That's far from a given.

How can there be anarchy without capitalism? How could a group control the market without monopolizing law enforcement/property claims?

Yes. I am saying they are good. And that capitlalism with out regulation worked in opposition to them.

I'd be very interested in any reason for thinking those laws are good. The child doesn't have to take the job if he doesn't want to. What if he would be in a worse situation if he didn't take it?

[NeilUnreal]

You're sure we had anarchy before people decided to form gangs?

Probably not; our primate ancestors probably lived in loose family groups. Government then was probably based on some sort of dominance hierarchy related to age and ability. We most likely moved gradually from that to more formal hierarchies (perhaps well before Homo sapiens).

But I think a family group is probably about as close to anarchy as one is likely to get among social mammals, in the sense that there is no government beyond the basic kinship level.

-Neil

[Individualist]

Probably not; our primate ancestors probably lived in loose family groups. Government then was probably based on some sort of dominance hierarchy related to age and ability.

But I think a family group is probably about as close to anarchy as one is likely to get among social mammals, in the sense that there is no government beyond the basic kinship level.

-Neil

Why can't we go from international cooperation (or wherever we are now) to a level of anachy we've never had before?

[Alcoth]

The child doesn't have to take the job if he doesn't want to. What if he would be in a worse situation if he didn't take it?

Keep in mind that the laws are in place also to protect against exploitation, forced labor.

[Soyeong]

Why can't we go from international cooperation (or wherever we are now) to a level of anachy we've never had before?

Who would enforce this level of anarchy?

[NeilUnreal]

Who would enforce this level of anarchy?

Exactly. A regulated, self-sustaining anarchy is probably not achievable. It's like trying to balance something that has a single point of balance: any perturbation with provoke its collapse.

Any organization capable of enforcing order, even if it is purely capitalist, functions as a government. And I postulate that such a purely capitalist "government" would produce an environment that was more tyrannical than what we have -- in effect, even if not on paper.

In fact, wealth would probably become concentrated to the point of producing a world ruled by one or more pure oligarchies.

It would be nice if we could all live together in some kind of ungoverned paradise. In fact, it's an ancient and noble dream. But it's probably not achievable.

-Neil