De topic kan je hier vinden.
Kerel begint:
Why I'm not a 'Anarcho-capitalist'
...although I used to use that to describe myself.
The reason I am growing weary of anarcho-capitalist theory is because it seems to involve reinventing the wheel. Anarcho-capitalist theory seems to involve tearing down government bureaucracies, and then replacing them with private-sector bureaucracies that are modeled after the State bureaucracies.
An example of this is the anarcho-capitalistic "PDA" I keep reading about in these forums. If I see one more discussion on PDAs, my head is going to explode.
PDA stands for "personal digital assistant"; it does not stand for "private defense agency". Whenever I see the letters PDA, I think, "Are they talking about a Palm Pilot? No, wait, they are talking about some hypothetical anarchy police force."
Not only is the acronym ridiculous, but the concept itself is unsavory. I don't want armed, uniformed, trained cops patrolling the streets, tax-paid or otherwise. As much as I dislike the State, I think "anarchocapitalism" could be worse! The uncertain environment of the marketplace would make everybody want to have to best-armed, most powerful private army. Each "PDA" would try to be better armed than the other guy, and eventually the subscribers would have to pay for the inevitable arms-races.
In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme, with private mercenaries enforcing property. I think that is quite unethical; I think that property rights should be protected with the minimum amount of force possible. Don't chase away a thief or trespasser with a gun, if you could use a pepperspray or an angry rottweiller.
The second example of private bureaucracy is the idea of "private legislatures" and "insurance companies" and "private courts" and whatever else. People would have to choose which private law-giver suits them best. These private law-givers would have to compete for customers, and customers would try to influence each other to accept their private lawgivers.
At least under the current regime, the leaders can hold power for several years at a time; whereas under this so-called "anarchy", it would always be an election year.
"Private law-givers" are totally unnecessary. People do not need to be "given" law; they ought to use their own social tact, civility, and common sense, with the occasional dispute being resolved by a competent jury.
These "insurance companies" would regulate laws and resolve disputes through arbitration. In the book "Chaos Theory", the author says, if I recall,
"In our model society, everybody would buy civil insurance, which would be similar to automotive liability insurance...."
I was stupified! The author simply assumed that every single person would be willing and able to purchase "insurance". This "insurance" sounds almost like a tax. Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship".
Under anarcho-capitalism, such "citizenship" would be necessary because all law would be based on contract. Somebody who had not specifically agreed in a contract not to rape or kill anybody would a lawless person, to be avoided at all costs.
Such a concept is ridiculous in my opinion. If somebody commits a crime, they should be arrested, tried, and punished regardless of what "PDA" they have or what contracts they have or have not signed. I think it is the responsibility of the community to determine the innocence or guilt or the suspect in a fair and just manner. And if that makes me a communist or statist, so be it.
Mijn reactie:
You are falling in to the trap of thinking about a state of anarchy as a sort of static equilibrium society, instead of a dynamic whole in which people interact based on (mainly) customary, contract- and tort law. (And very likely something like a decentralized common law system; a Western version of the Xeer in Somalia.)
The question why some people call themself anarchists is not that force is unjustified, but that force can only be used for legitimate purposes. Since 'the state' uses agressive coercin per se, the state should be done with. That doesn't mean that there could be no problems of 'disequilibrium' in anarchy; just that cannot justify a state.
"If somebody commits a crime, they should be arrested, tried, and punished regardless of what "PDA" they have or what contracts they have or have not signed."<= And no anarchist will disagree with you. The question is: what is the more realistic vision in which this will happen? A decentralized system, based on customary-, common-, tort- and contract law or a centralized state with the relevant knowledge problem and illegitimate use of force that goes with it?
'PDA's (which I tend to dislike as a word as well; because imo it doesn't grasp the diversity and creativity of judicial systems that I can imagine to arise) are just a heuristic device to explain things. No one here is actually advocating that 'everyone must join a for profit insurance company that deals with everything that the state now does concerning justice and safety'. That is a misconception of the anarchist position - but I can imagine confusion arising if you spend to much time on this forum. Can I imagine 'PDA's evolve? Sure. Will these companies be the only one pursuing justice and safety? Hardly.
Anarchy is not just 'private bureaucracies'; it is decentralized decisionmaking and 'organisations' that 'govern' society are voluntary associations. Governance doesn't entail government.
"I think it is the responsibility of the community to determine the innocence or guilt or the suspect in a fair and just manner."<= But the 'community' is a holistic hole. You are not giving us the mechanisms you want that should deal with injustice. Either you want a monopolistic organization that uses coercion to get the means to fulfill her tasks - and no 'a coercion of all against all' isn't justified - or you want decentralized organizations that deal with it; based on the mores and customary law that is in society.
I would advice the text 'Law as a Discovery Procedure' (just google it) which appeared in a Cato journal. It clarify's the issue in a way that isn't as 'rational constructivistic' as Rothbard. Especially this relevant quote, with which I agree:
(Begin quote from text 'Law as a Discovery Procedure') As previously discussed, the legal rights to property and contract would probably not be absolute in a private legal system. To some extent, then, the system might not be purely libertarian. Nor would a private legal system necessarily consider a person’s legal rights to be infringed only if he (or his tangible property) had been physically invaded or defrauded. (...)
People can, of course, try to persuade others, including the judges in a future private legal system, to adopt a philosophy ofstrict, or even ultrastrict, “anarcho-libertarianism,” just as they can try to persuade today’s legislators to enact a particular combination ofpolicies or, for that matter, persuade private enterprises to sell partictilar products at particular prices. The problem is that people in whatever politicoeconomic system is under discussion are faced with incentives that are not systematically consistent with the particular actions being asked ofthem. Thus, if an ideological movement succeeded in bringing about a pure state ofanarcho-libertarianism (as improbable as that seems), this result would probably not constitute a stable politicoeconomic equilibrium. (End quote from 'Law as a discovery Procedure')"The uncertain environment of the marketplace would make everybody want to have to best-armed, most powerful private army. Each "PDA" would try to be better armed than the other guy, and eventually the subscribers would have to pay for the inevitable arms-races."<= How do you 'know' this? I think there are good reasons to suspect that this is not the most obvious corse of action. First of all: people in general don't feel the need to attack one another. (The role of mores in a society are relevant; and most people don't really need the threat of agression in order that they won't attack each other.) If this weren't the case, the state would be powerless as well. (Because they couldn't have the means to threat everyone all the time; and do we really want a state then, because will the policemen of the state be so gentle?) Second of all: it's not really about 'bigger gun'. You need 'enough to make sure you can damage the other guy'. This doesn't entail more and bigger guns per se. Tanks cost a lot of money; the average criminal is better of working then to try and buy a tank. If you sincerely believe this, I'm not sure that I can convince you otherwise. But try to examine for yourself the things you need to presuppose for this scenario to become reality. I think they are highly unlikely - and if they were true; I don't know if I would want a state in that case. Because you need to be intellectual honest (I'm not saying you are not); the same presuppostions on human behavior should be used to judge anarchy in a comperative analysis with the state.
"In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme, with private mercenaries enforcing property. I think that is quite unethical; I think that property rights should be protected with the minimum amount of force possible. Don't chase away a thief or trespasser with a gun, if you could use a pepperspray or an angry rottweiller."<= I don't want private mercenaries either. I do believe that killing someone who walks on your lawn is a breach of that persons rights. I think most people think like that. Why do you suppose that in anarchy; this would change? Anarchy, like the state, will translate the preferences of people into 'governance'. If people in general want to kill everyone who walks on their lawn, then this will be government policy as well. But people don't want that and people think that's unethical. I see no real reason that this would happen to change, just because the way people 'govern' society is decentralized and (more) voluntary. The concept of 'proportionality' has been around for centuries in every law system - either state or more decentralized. I see no real reason that this will just 'change', just because we have no state.
"The second example of private bureaucracy is the idea of "private legislatures" and "insurance companies" and "private courts" and whatever else."<= I think - to be honest - you are lumping together a straw man with real arguments. But I'm not sure. In any way: nobody is in favour of 'private legislature' as it is understood now as the parliament. But 'private legilature' is everywhere. When you are in a hotel: there are rules. When you are in a store: there are rules. When you work for a company: there are rules. There is no problem with rules within a organisation. What anarchists say, is that this is no reason to enact rules that should count for an entire area, based solely on the use of force, without the consent of the people. I also see no problem with 'insurance companies'. I would like to be insured against some things; being attacked by someone would probably be one of those things. And 'private courts' is something you favour too: "they ought to use their own social tact, civility, and common sense, with the occasional dispute being resolved by a competent jury."
"Private law-givers" are totally unnecessary. People do not need to be "given" law; they ought to use their own social tact, civility, and common sense, with the occasional dispute being resolved by a competent jury."<= And nobody is advocating 'giving law' like it is understood now. Au contraire. As you yourself (if I interpret you right) admit; there is a need for rules to govern interaction. These laws will evolve over time, influenced by the way people think on what is justified and what is not. I can imagine in anarchy there evolving rules that are non-libertarian (as it has happen in the past), but in general: anarchy tends to more property oriented and more respectfull for human liberty then always the relevant alternative of government. (Even in contemporary Somalia: the anarchy there is favours human libery more then the previous system of government. This is not the say that, from a libertarian perspective, there are grave problems in Somalia.)
"Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship"."<= I would say that this is definitely a straw man. Why won't he be able to 'purchase' anything or 'walk down the street'? What is true is, that if he has a problem (he was robbed or something), than he won't have a company to go to direcly, but has to find another means to solve this problem. He can just buy ad hoc, he can go to a charity organisation, ask his boss/friends/family/whatever for help, etc.He just won't have the 'insurance' that he can go to 'his' company when he's attacked to catch the robber. The point is not: 'how can we imagine this guy to be helped?' but: are there reasons to conceptualize that in anarchy, these kind of problems can be solved by voluntary interaction? I see clearly reasons to assume this, given the entrepreunerial capacities of people, given that people care about each other, given that anarchy allows trial and error, etc.
"Under anarcho-capitalism, such "citizenship" would be necessary because all law would be based on contract. Somebody who had not specifically agreed in a contract not to rape or kill anybody would a lawless person, to be avoided at all costs."<= I see no reason to assume that all governance of activities will be based on contract law. Just because you and I don't have a contract, doesn't mean that you can attack me. Historicly: there never was a system that worked like that ('hey, we don't have a contract, so I can kill you!') and with good reason. The system of law exist exactly because of this: because people can't contract everything, we need a system of law that governs our activities with other people. The ultimate point of anarchy is that a system of law (customary-, custom- and tort) doesn't mean that we need a government/state/legislature.I hope this helps.
Daarna namen de 'gewone' Misesforumgangers - waar ik over het algemeen niet te veel mooie woorden voor over heb, gezien de gehanteerde stijl die ze hebben - het over en verzande de discussie in 'wij zijn beter dan jij'.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten