21 Jun 2014

Tom Woods and I Discuss Private Defense

Shameless Self-Promotion, Tom Woods, Voluntaryism 178 Comments

I’m being serious, I think Tom and I make this sound pretty plausible. So if you’re a free-market-loving minarchist, tell me what you think we’re missing.

Remember everybody, Tom Woods is going to be at the Night of Clarity on August 15! If you jump for joy when it’s another of his shows where I’m the guest, I really can’t understand why you wouldn’t make plans to see us both in hopping downtown Nashville. Full details here.

One funny thing I realized while listening to the playback: I think that insurance companies would play a big role in a modern, industrialized society based on voluntary relations. This naturally leads some critics to worry, “Wouldn’t the insurance companies turn into the State in your world?” I have come up with responses to that, but I noticed that in Tom’s discussion at one point, he throws out three examples of real-world insurance companies. Their names? Allstate, State Farm, and Progressive. Uh oh.

178 Responses to “Tom Woods and I Discuss Private Defense”

  1. Bob Roddis says:

    As I said yesterday, Bob Murphy made in interesting and essential point. If people are good enough to write a constitution and respect the outcome of an election, they are probably good and decent enough to operate under AnCap. More importantly, if the population consists of people who are engaged constant blood feuds and engage in knife fights at the drop of a hat, how is granting a special group of them a monopoly on state violence going to help things?

    Further, imposing democracy (along with a large “public sector” controlled by the government) upon a nation of hostile multi-ethnic groups is only going to exacerbate those hatreds as the largest group takes command of the government controlled economy. Anyone ever heard of Iraq?

    http://tinyurl.com/m47gsar

    • gienon says:

      But but but people anointed to the governmental altar become selfless and infinitely virtuous, and therefore will have the ability and desire to eliminate all predatory tendencies among the stupid masses. Weren’t you listening at school, sir?

      • Bob Roddis says:

        We joke about it, but as preposterous that viewpoint is, it is probably the main (and impenetrable) obstacle to people seeing our vision. Being supplied by goods and services by politicians who can lie to you and perhaps kill you without penalty is safer that having those goods and services supplied by people who can be strictly liable for breach of contract. Right?

        Query: Does that viewpoint arise because of our monstrously over-complicated legal system? I think people blame “the free market” for their inability to be able to get swift and inexpensive high quality adjudication of disputes when it is the fault of the government legal system.

  2. Major-Freedom says:

    The only way a private law society would work is through creating it. If private law is being squashed, then the creation will be an insurrection.

    I don’t depend on others to do it for me.

    Those who rationally want to become free of aggressive violence must find ways to disobey aggressive rules against person and property, either from states or private institutions, and protect what is theirs from their own homesteading and free trade.

    The above does not become ethically just only after others, 51% or otherwise, are convinced of it. It becomes ethically just with the individual’s own activity.

    All human society forms are contingent. None are made exogenously permanent or inevitable. They are creations that can be destroyed. Will states persist? Not necessarily. Will private law societies persist? Not necessarily. Did the collapse if the USSR prove collapse of such a form is inevitable? No. Would any collapse of present day absence of world government, or pseudo-anarchy, prove that that collapse of such a form is inevitable? No. It all depends on creative/destructive activity.

  3. Josiah says:

    I think there are a lot of problems with this, but I’ll just focus on one for now:

    Suppose I sign up with one of these defense insurance companies, pay your premiums, etc. Then one day you wake up to find Gene Callahan at the head of a line of tanks outside your front door. “Attention residents of Nashville,” he says through a loud speaker, “from this day forth you are all subjects of the Callahan Empire. All that you have belongs to me. My word is law! Kneel before Zod.. I mean, Gene!”

    Even assuming that the defense company you contracted with hasn’t been obliterated in the invasion, how exactly are you supposed to file a claim? You can’t.

    In other words, the situation in which one would be entitled to a payment from a defense insurance company is one where in all likelihood you would not be able to file your claim. And since everyone knows this, there would be no point in buying the insurance in the first place.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Josiah, did you just prove that life insurance would never work?

      • Josiah says:

        Josiah, did you just prove that life insurance would never work?

        Nope

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Wow you’re making this difficult Josiah.

          (A) We both agree that I can buy a contract saying that a company will pay a bunch of money to a named beneficiary if I die. This works, even though I obviously won’t be around to enforce the claim.

          (B) You are saying it’s unlikely this mechanism could work for military invasions, because the owners of the destroyed/seized property would not be able to enforce the claim.

          In any event, Josiah, what if the billionaires who own the skyscrapers have a car and a TV (not implausible suggestions)? They realize there is an invading army massing on the border, so they hop in the car and leave the city before it is taken over. Then they call up the insurance company and ask for their $500 million check.

          Science fiction?

          • Josiah says:

            Bob,

            Perhaps I was unclear.

            The point of my example was not that a person can’t collect an insurance payment if they are dead. (You’ll note that, in my example I don’t die).

            Suppose I am worried about the financial health of my employer. I express my concern to my boss, who says “tell you what, I promise that if I go bankrupt, I will pay you a million dollars.”

            Should that put my mind at ease? No. Not because I might die, but because the circumstances where I am entitled to collect are also circumstances where my boss can’t pay.

            Now the case of the defense insurance company is not quite as bad as that. It could be, for example, that Callahan manages to conquer my neighborhood, but I am able to escape *and* the defense insurance still has assets outside of the control of the Callahan Empire sufficient to pay me. Still, there is a great deal of overlap between the circumstances in which I can make a claim and the circumstances in which the company can’t pay me. Which greatly reduces both the value of defense insurance for me, and the likelihood that I will buy it.

            Note: the fact that the defense insurance idea doesn’t work does not mean that some other anarchist mechanism for providing defense won’t work. Maybe there’s some other way to get to the same result.

            • Bob Murphy says:

              Josiah,

              I realize I may be annoying, since I asked for critical feedback and then I’m being saucy when you give it.

              However, you seem to think that military affairs are all-or-nothing events. You don’t think there is a huge range of circumstances in which, say, portions of the current US could be bombed or shelled, and yet financial institutions aren’t completely pillaged by an invader? If New York got attacked by Chinese warships, wouldn’t there still be functioning insurance company branch offices in Chicago and LA?

              Further: When Nazi Germany took over France, did all of the French insurance companies stop honoring their contracts? I’m not talking about specific exemptions built into the clauses about “acts of God or acts of war,” I mean did the mere fact that the country got invaded suddenly mean insurance companies no longer had to pay anybody anything?

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Seems like Josiah’s argument boils down to “People probably wouldn’t pay premiums for insurance that pays out on their death.”

                You’ve already addressed that as unrealistic.

              • Josiah says:

                Bob,

                Don’t worry, I’m not annoyed (not even at Major Freedom’s inability to deal with any argument that doesn’t fit his narrow script; that I just find amusing).

                It’s true that there are military actions short of war, such as bombing. But I don’t need to buy defense insurance to protect myself against the threat of bombing. My homeowners policy can cover that. To be useful, a defense insurance contract would have to cover more than that, and I don’t think it can credibly do so, for the reasons I mentioned above.

                As for Nazi occupied France, as far as I know things like fire insurance kept operating normally (although the Nazis were known for mucking with insurance payouts for ideological reasons). But since defense insurance companies are supposed to step into the role of the government in providing national defense, the question should be about what happened to the government, not about what happened to unrelated insurance companies.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Josiah:

                “Don’t worry, I’m not annoyed (not even at Major Freedom’s inability to deal with any argument that doesn’t fit his narrow script; that I just find amusing).”

                Hahaha!

                Speaking of narrow scripts, it is your anti-anarchist narrow script that is why you are unable to address the arguments I am making about your problematic claims and assumptions.

                Guess we can chalk what you just said as projection.

                I am addressing what you are saying, but you’re not addressing what I am saying, and then, to make this even more funny for you, you actually have the gall to say I am not addressing your claims. I don’t know what’s worse. You decieving yourself, or trying to decieve others.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Josiah:

                “It’s true that there are military actions short of war, such as bombing. But I don’t need to buy defense insurance to protect myself against the threat of bombing. My homeowners policy can cover that. To be useful, a defense insurance contract would have to cover more than that, and I don’t think it can credibly do so, for the reasons I mentioned above.”

                What reasons above? You haven’t given any. You just asserted that private defense is not possible.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Josiah wrote:

                As for Nazi occupied France, as far as I know things like fire insurance kept operating normally (although the Nazis were known for mucking with insurance payouts for ideological reasons). But since defense insurance companies are supposed to step into the role of the government in providing national defense, the question should be about what happened to the government, not about what happened to unrelated insurance companies.

                No no no. I’m not saying you’re doing it intentionally, but now you’re completely changing your argument mid-stream.

                Originally you were telling me that the nature of insurance wouldn’t function in the wake of an invasion, and that’s why the State-funding method of military defense is superior.

                Now you’re admitting that yes insurance companies would actually still make payments after a foreign invasion, but have switched to saying that since State-funded military defense breaks down in this event, the same must be true of any insurance companies that also happen to provide military defense.

                No, that’s not right. The insurance contracts themselves are *not* about the purchase of SAM sites and submarine fleets. No, the actual insurance contracts just indemnify the property owners in the event of invasion or battle damage.

                Now, given the issuance of billions / trillions of dollars of coverage, which you agree may very well be paid out even after the Chinese Communists take over the eastern seaboard, it behooves the insurance companies to minimize the likelihood of this outcome by mining the Atlantic coast, setting up radar stations, monitoring the activities of the Chinese military, etc.

              • Josiah says:

                Originally you were telling me that the nature of insurance wouldn’t function in the wake of an invasion

                No, that’s not what I was saying. I’m saying there are two special problems with defense insurance that don’t apply to actually existing forms of insurance.

                The first is that in the event of a successful invasion, the defense insurance company is likely to have many of it’s assets destroyed or seized, so that it may not be able to pay out.

                The second problem is that even if the defense company survives, whether people are allowed to make claims is up to the invading power. And unlike fire insurance, an invader has a strong incentive not to allow payments (or to allow them but then seize the proceeds) because this weakens the basis for defense insurance and makes conquering people much easier.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Josiah the “problem” you are raising with private defense insurance is just that out of all possible futures, one or two or three or whatever, will have zero payouts.

                You should realize that this is not sufficient to preventing suvh insurance contracts. It would only affect the probabilistic calculation of premiums to charge relative to all the possible worlds that would have a payout, e.g. invaders are defeated, x amount wealth destroyed.

                Here, the calculation would take into account payouts X for defeating the invaders, and 0 otherwise.

                The value of this insurance is NOT zero if people value a positive probabilistic calculated payout.

                There are many existing private insurance contracts that have zero payout in one or more possible worlds. But that doesn’t stop the contracts from being made because in these cases as well, zero payout is not ALL possible future worlds.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Call option contracts for example have a payout of zero in all worlds where the stock price is lower than the strike price, and P-X otherwise.

                Similarly, private defense insurance payouts would be zero in all worlds where the private defense insurance company’s assets are seized or destroyed by an invading army, and the payout might be P otherwise.

                The fundamental problem with Josiah’s argument is that as an anti-anarchist, he is unable to even consider a world with no state, because if by chance or otherwise there is no state at a moment in time, then something something something there arises a state so all private defense, including private defense insurance contracts, would be destroyed, nulled and voided.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Josiah:

              “the fact that the defense insurance idea doesn’t work does not mean that some other anarchist mechanism for providing defense won’t work. Maybe there’s some other way to get to the same result.”

              You have not established that claim to be a “fact.” You just keep claiming it can’t work, and your reasoning is flawed, as I showed above.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          I once encountered this wacky economist who suggested that we deal with the risk of traffic accidents through “automobile insurance.” But I’m like: Imagine Gene Callahan is driving his tractor trailer right at you! Thus, in the very circumstances in which you would like to get reimbursed by the auto insurance company, you will be dead and unable to do so. So you don’t take out the policy in the first place. This is why we need the government to own roads.

          • Major-Freedom says:

            …and “educate” the children.

          • Major-Freedom says:

            Callahan be like: “Look, just because I fully support the beating, kidnapping and likely raping of anyone who wants to remain residing in their home but decide not to pay what Obama and his goons want you to pay, it doesn’t mean I would find pleasure in driving a tractor trailer at you. I mean, what kind of a monster do you think I am?”

    • Major-Freedom says:

      Josiah, the problem you see is a reflection of your problematic assumptions.

      You might not realize it, but your assumptions contradict because you believe states are worth paying by some people, and yet the exact same potential scenario is possible between governments and their tanks and respective taxpaying “give me what you promised” public, which means you believe that people would not pay for government, and people would pay for government, at the same time.

      • Josiah says:

        MF,

        If people could choose to not pay taxes, then the situations would be similar. My understanding was that libertarians thought if you didn’t force people to pay taxes the system would collapse. So also with defense insurance companies.

        • Major-Freedom says:

          States are not institutions of protection and security though. They are institutions of aggressive force.

          Are you are saying that states are capable of being maintained even if everyone would not want to pay states for defense?

          If you believe that people are willing to pay taxes to maintain states, then there is no reason to deny that people would be willing to pay groups of people where such institutions are paid in accordance with individual preference among competing defense institutions.

          • Josiah says:

            Are you are saying that states are capable of being maintained even if everyone would not want to pay states for defense?

            Well, sure. For example, you don’t want to pay the U.S. government for defense, and yet it continues to exist. QED.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Josiah that is weak.

              I am clearly not “everyone.”

              You haven’t addressed the problems I raised in your claims.

            • Philippe says:

              If everyone would not want to pay states for defense, then there would be no state spending on defense.

              The reason ‘private defence agencies’ haven’t replaced national armies is because no one wants them to, except for a few people who read this and similar blogs.

            • Gamble says:

              Most people are willing to pay Feds for defense. IT is the other 256,432,897 things the Feds have their sticky paws into that people don’t want to pay for.

              Town government is no better. I will pay them for roads but upon closer inspection local municipalities have their hands on everything. 150 bucks to this charity, 5000.00 to this or that welfare program, etc. etc. Not to mention the 85% rule. Most governments somehow, always, drift towards 85% of ALL revenue goes to employees compensation. There is never any money left over for concrete/pavement. Give them a tax increases and they bring on more employees, conduct more studies, give more away and the roads never change.

              Geesh if this was only about defense and roads. If only.

              I have had enough arguments with statist to no longer fall for your bait and switch.

        • Major-Freedom says:

          Or another way of showing the contradiction: If your belief is that people would not finance their own defense against theft if they had the choice, and that this somehow serves to justify forcing them to pay at gunpoint to monopolies of defense, then you are advocating for the very thing you claim people should finance a defense against.

          At root, what you are really saying is that if people choose not to defend themselves against theft, that they should be robbed by a special person or group of people as the only means of maintaining a payment for defense relationship against other would be robbers. Sort of like a statist peoplesteading principle. Claim the hapless victim for oneself or one’s preferred friends, and then defend that cash cow from other robbers.

          • Josiah says:

            At root, what you are really saying is that if people choose not to defend themselves against theft, that they should be robbed by a special person or group of people as the only means of maintaining a payment for defense relationship against other would be robbers.

            You need to improve your reading comprehension. I haven’t said anything about what “should” be.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              You need to stop pulling the wool over people’s eyes.

              At any rate, whether we frame it as should or “that’s why”, the problem remains and you haven’t addressed it.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              I guess me thinking you’re not an anarchist is just a figment of my imagination, isn’t it? What, did you believe that if you don’t say “should” in a post, that it isn’t in any way influencing your statements at the time? Don’t make me laugh. Be honest.

              • Josiah says:

                I guess me thinking you’re not an anarchist is just a figment of my imagination, isn’t it?

                I am not an anarchist, but there’s nothing in what I wrote above that couldn’t have been written by an anarchist.

                Perhaps you have no response to what I wrote and so would like to change the subject?

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Josiah, you just keep diggin a deeper hole for yourself insteadnof engaging the arguments I am making about your contradictory assumptions.

                An anarchist would not write what you just wrote because an anarchist would not disbelieve anarchy is possible like you are doing here.

                An anarchist would quite naturally think anarchy is possible and would therefore have at least one idea on how people could defend themselves against theft and aggression without a state stealing from them in the name of protecting property.

                Why are you pretending that your anti-anarchism is having nothing to do whatsoever with your arguments on this thread?

                I haven’t addressed what you wrote? That’s also ridiculous because I am directly addressing your argument above and asking/inviting you to address the problems, which you have not addressed.

                Seems like youndon’t have an answer to them. To you, anarchy is a bad idea and jut can’t work, so that is coloring your understanding of Murphy’s article.

              • Philippe says:

                If everyone didn’t want to pay states for defense, then there would be no state spending on defense.

                The reason ‘private defence agencies’ haven’t replaced national armies is because no one wants them to, except for a few people who read this and similar blogs.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “If everyone didn’t want to pay states for defense, then there would be no state spending on defense.”

                That’s certainly likely and reasonable to surmise.

                “The reason ‘private defence agencies’ haven’t replaced national armies is because no one wants them to, except for a few people who read this and similar blogs.”

                And?

                Hardly anyone wanted democracy a hundred or so years prior to the French Revolution.

                Hardly anyone wanted slave emancipation in the year, say 1000 AD.

                What most people want has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is ethical and just to the INDIVIDUAL. <- Not yelling, just emphasizing.

              • Philippe says:

                “What most people want has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is ethical and just to the INDIVIDUAL”

                What you personally believe to be ethical and just is not what the vast majority of people believe to be ethical and just.

                No one wants ‘private defense agencies’ to replace the national army except for a few ancap types. The idea is nonsensical and completely unwanted.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Totally irrelevant.

                What “most people believe is just” is not the actual foundation of what is just.

                Reason is the foundation.

                If most people believe, as they did ages ago, that slavery was just, that would not make slavery just.

                If but one individual used reason to show slavery is unjust, and did not want to be a slave, then it doesn’t matter how many other people believe slavery were just and it doesn’t matter how many people want to enslave him.

                What you are doing is appealing to the ad populum fallacy. This is a very common recourse of those who have no rational or logical argument to give. They appeal to arbitrary standards like what most people happen to believe.

                If most people did not want slavery to end, then according to your illogic, since “nobody wants civil rights and emancipqtion for slaves except for a few ancap types”, then slavery should continue to be imposed by force, and that only when “most people” want slavery to end, will slavery suddenly become unjust.

                Philippe, you wrote that the ancap idea is “nonsensical” WITHOUT GIVING A RATIONAL, LOGICAL ARGUMENT as to how.

                You also wrote that it is “completely unwanted.”

                Can you imagine a slave master (accurately) telling an individual slave who wanted to be free that “ending your slavery is unwanted by most people, therefore you ought to be a slave.”?

                Your illogical argument is what is nonsensical.

                It doesn’t matter if those who WANT to continue the enslavement of other individuals, want to themselves remain slaves. They can live the way they want, they just ought not force others to live the same way.

                By telling me that you don’t want ancap ethics, all you are saying is that you don’t want the oppression to stop. Do you honestly believe that merely having your belief that states are not inherently violent and unjust makes it necessarily accurate? Ages ago many people did not have any inkling or clue that slavery was wrong. They were truly convinced it was OK. You are like those people. You are wrong like those people.

              • Lurker says:

                “Hardly anyone wanted slave emancipation in the year, say 1000 AD.”

                Stupid analogy. Very few slaves ever consented to being slaves. Most people who pay taxes consent to do so, because taxation is a civic duty imposed by a community on all its members to finance public services which the whole community benefits from.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Lurker:

                The analogy is the number of people who thought slavery was OK and the number of people who believe states today are OK.

                If the argument is that states are OK simply because most people believe states are OK, then by analogy so must slavery have been OK.

                Do try to keep up.

                Yes, the slaves did not consent to it, but then that is not even a challenge the point I made at all because anarcho-capitalists also not consent to being ruled by states.

                You said: “Most people who pay taxes consent to do so, because taxation is a civic duty imposed by a community on all its members”

                Well which is it? Is it voluntary or is it imposed by force?

                “to finance public services which the whole community benefits from.”

                BS. Please don’t presume to know what benefits others without asking them. They know more about what benefits them then you do on your make believe soapbox.

                What a horrible post that was. Sheesh.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Slavery was also “imposed” on people and they were expected to “do their duty” as well.

              • Ben B says:

                Lurker,

                MF is right. Don’t go changing your name to ‘Poster’ just yet.

    • Major-Freedom says:

      Josiah:

      In my response to your post here, I said your logic implies that nobody would pay for a government to protect them from theft either.

      You then replied that my argument on your logic would only work if we had a choice to pay government, like we would with private defense.

      I then said that that is a claim that in order to protect against Callahan’s tanks, another group of people would have to be there to force, that is, steal, from people to protect them against people like Callahan, because if that force were absent, and people had a choice, then they would not pay for protection against theft, and Callahan and his tanks would then be able to steal from people.

      Your narrow script that government is necessary is leading you to claim that all possible worlds will have a state stealing from people. One world is where people have a choice to pay for protection but they absolutely by the hand of Josiah’s God choose not to, and thus become victimized by Callahan’s tanks and de facto government there, and the other world is where people don’t have a choice and are…victimized by another person or group of people with tanks who steal from them and thus de facto government there too.

      In other words, YOUR ASSUMPTIONS are contradictory. Your assumptions include the belief, whether you are aware of it or not, that in order for people to protect themselves against theft, there must be a person there to steal from them.

      You have still not addressed this problem in your beliefs. You have evaded them.

      • Raja says:

        Not pay the old bad guy -> New bad guy gets you -> New bad guy forces you to pay
        Pay the old bad guy -> New bad guy doesn’t get you -> Old bad guy forces you to pay

        Is that the gist of what MF has summarized?

        • Major-Freedom says:

          That is his belief yes, which is causing the inability to see what I explained above about possible worlds with zero payout and X payout.

          If people expect invading armies to be defeated 8 times out of 10, say, then a rough payout calculation could be p*(0.8) + (0)*(0.2), where p is payout for defeating army. (Of course things would be more complex in real world)

          If on the other hand a people believe that they stand no chance against an invasion, and some private defense insurance company approached them with an offer, then here is where Josiah’s scenario comes in to play, that is, where his narrow script worldview includes a state and ni other possible scenarios.

    • Ben B says:

      Ha. As if a socialist army could ever defeat a free-market defense agency.

      I mean, come on, if we had free-market defense agencies, then we’d have force fields by now.

      • Raja says:

        I thought it was mentioned somewhere here that the matter of win or defeat vs. a socialist army would be a matter of resources. A smaller and less resourceful yet free society may not have sufficient resources to resist the onslaught of a socialist army, or may not be able to afford the services of better free market armies. The socialist army may not be as efficient but it certainly could overwhelm with sheer might.

        We here cannot forget that even a free market army may not be efficient enough. Just because it’s free market doesn’t mean there are not categories of free market armies, some better than the others. Just like any business, some might just fail, and others stand out to be better at what they do.

        • Ben B says:

          “I thought it was mentioned somewhere here that the matter of win or defeat vs. a socialist army would be a matter of resources.”

          Yes, resources matter. But matter how? In quantity, in quality, in how they are utilized? Surely, a free market defense agency would be able to replace their resources at a faster rate.

          “A smaller and less resourceful yet free society may not have sufficient resources to resist the onslaught of a socialist army, or may not be able to afford the services of better free market armies.”

          You are talking about a free society in general, and not a free market defense agency. Yes, a free society is not a sufficient condition for the existence of free market defense agencies.

          “The socialist army may not be as efficient but it certainly could overwhelm with sheer might.”

          Why couldn’t a free-market defense agency ‘overwhem with sheer might.’? Do you mean that a socialist army wouldn’t have to worry about collateral damage?

          “Just because it’s free market doesn’t mean there are not categories of free market armies, some better than the others.”

          Technically, if I went around by myself selling contracts to my neighbors, I would be a free-market defense agency. No, me and my AR-15 probably won’t be able to take down Gene Callahan’s tank battalion. This isn’t the type of free-market defense agency I had in mind.

          Let’s say, ha [ceteris paribus], as if a socialist army could defeat a free market defense agency.

        • guest says:

          The socialist army may not be as efficient but it certainly could overwhelm with sheer might.

          A socialist army consuming the resources acquired through prior laissez-faire activity doesn’t exactly count for that which you’re arguing.

          • Major-Freedom says:

            Socialist governments as a rule have access to stealing fewer resources as compared to capitalist governments. Their armies would, ceteris paribus, be smaller than they otherwise would or could be.

            • guest says:

              What I mean is that governments had to be more laissez-faire-friendly in order to have acquired the resources necessary to support a new socialist army.

              Similar to how Sweden’s socialism relied on prior free-er markets:

              The Truth About Sweden
              http://www.libertyclassroom.com/sweden/

      • Josiah says:

        Ha. As if a socialist army could ever defeat a free-market defense agency.
        I mean, come on, if we had free-market defense agencies, then we’d have force fields by now.

        In Radicals for Capitalism, there is a bit about how a group of libertarians tried to establish an anarcho-capitalist society on a small island in the Pacific. The short-lived experiment in freedom ends when the neighboring island nation of Tonga sends a single gunboat and conquers the island. The book does not explain why the libertarians didn’t just activate their force fields to repel the invaders.

        • guest says:

          If only they had Socialism so they could turn sand, rocks, and palm trees into *two* gunboats.

        • guest says:

          Also, anarcho-capitalists aren’t isolationists:

          Defending the Undefendable (Chapter 23: The Importer) by Walter Block
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTT_WHyzZ54

        • Ben B says:

          A free society is not a sufficient condition for the existence of free-market defense agencies.

          Does that explain why they didn’t activate their force fields?

        • Tel says:

          The Tongans should sue that guy for slander. They tend to nice people.

      • Philippe says:

        Ben B,

        so would private companies create and stockpile nuclear weapons in ancap world?

        • Bob Murphy says:

          I discussed that issue in my pamphlet Philippe. You should read it if you haven’t already.

          • Philippe says:

            I’ve read the first half.

          • Philippe says:

            Bob,

            “with no taxation, regulation, tariffs, or immigration quotas, the anarchist society would be of tremendous value to all major governments. They would surely act to protect it from intimidation by a rival nuclear power.”

            So nuclear weapons aren’t really a problem because foreign states will surely act to protect the anarchist society?

            • Philippe says:

              Bob?

            • Ben B says:

              Why do nuclear States such as the US protect other non-nuclear States now? Out of the kindness of their hearts?

              • Tel says:

                Otherwise who would buy treasuries?

              • Philippe says:

                Ben,

                the problem is Bob dismisses the problem of nuclear weapons by saying that foreign governments will solve the problem.

              • Ben B says:

                Philippe,

                Think…”comparative advantage”.

            • Gamble says:

              If not for socialist government, we would not have nuclear weapons to worry about.

              All of this war, even small guerilla groups, all get their funding from socialist structure. Even America. Think about the income tax, etc.

              Normal people that work for their fruits, don’t then turn around and blow that very fruit to smithereens.

              I blame all of this on communitarian mindset.

    • guest says:

      Then one day you wake up to find Gene Callahan at the head of a line of tanks outside your front door.

      You mean outside my front bunker, since the government wasn’t trying to regulate how my house is supposed to be built?

      I’m pretty sure my be-turreted neighbors would find Gene amusing.

  4. laugh says:

    You must love big govt. You are going to create a police force that is not limited by the bill of rights. Talk about stupid.

    • Major-Freedom says:

      Why wouldn’t such police forces be limited to a more ethical system of rules?

      Talk about a non-argument.

      Just because a government enacts a bill of rights that it doesn’t follow, it doesn’t mean such rules are impossible.

  5. Hank says:

    Do you guys consider David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom to be a good resource about how private law would work out?

    • Josiah says:

      Hank,

      Friedman’s book (along with Bob’s Chaos Theory) are some of the best treatments of the subject I’ve seen.

      • Hank says:

        In a footnote of a paper, Hulsmann gives a lot of resources regarding private production of defense and security. Here it is:

        See for instance Gustave de Molinari, “De la production de la sécurite,” Journal des Economistes 8, no. 22 (1849); Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market (Kansas City: Sheed and Andrews, 1977); idem, For A New Liberty (New York: Macmillan, 1978); Morris and Linda Tannehill, The Market for Liberty (New York: Laissez Faire Books, 1984); Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
        (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989); idem, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993); idem, “The Private Production of Defense,” Essays in Political Economy (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1998); Bruce Benson, The Enterprise of Law (San Francisco: Pacific Institute, 1991); St. Blankertz, “Eingreifen statt Übergreifen,” in Fritz Fliszar, ed. Freiheit: die unbequeme Idee (Stuttgart 1995); idem, Wie liberal kann
        Staat sein? (St. Augustin: Academia, 1997). On denationalizing defense and private armies, see Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, “Deterrence vs. Disarmament: The Practical Considerations,” Caliber 9, no. 5 (1981); idem, “On Defense,” Free World Chronicle II, no. 2 (1984); idem, “The Great Libertarian Defense Debate: A Critique of Robert Poole’s Defending a Free Society,” Nomos 3, nos. 2 and 3, (1985); idem, “A Practical Case for Denationalizing Defense,” The Pragmatist 3, nos. 5 and 6 (1986). For historical instances of private law enforcement, see also John C. Lester and D.L. Wilson, Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth, and Disbandment (New York: Neale, 1905); Jeremiah P. Shalloo, Private Police
        (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1933); William C. Wooldridge, Uncle Sam, the Monopoly Man (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1970); Joseph R. Peden, “Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1, no. 2 (1977): 81–95; Diego Gambetta, The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993); Martin van Creveld, The Rise and Decline of the State (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999), chap. 1.

  6. Michael P. Shipley says:

    I keep thinking all these arguments about how an ancap society would work are way off base.

    It wouldnt be millions of individuals paying DRO’s to secure their safety. An ancap society in North America would be more like Game of Thrones, x 100,000.

    By that I mean, if govt is abolished, what would form in its place are many small “kingdoms,” each having a “king”, called a corporation. These corporations would take over all the current cities and run them like Disney Land Resort runs itself now, just like a city, but no democracy, a total private dictatorship. (All guns would be banned btw, and probably drugs as well. Sorry.) If you want to smoke, please exit through the rear drawbridge to the Dragon Park smoking zone, thank you.

    In an ancap society you have open borders. No one is going to want to be outside the castle walls. You want to be within those walls. You need to be within those walls. Within those walls is security and roads and circus rides and rainbows. Outside is hordes of crazed pagan barbarians (mostly Russians according to Ayn Rand).

    The king (corporation) would own all the land and would only rent or leashold land for living or business purposes. It would have total control, make up its own arbitrary rules, but wouldnt become too tyrannical because, like any profit oriented business, it wouldnt want to piss off their customers and make them go to a competing kingdom.

    Each kingdom would have a court to settle disputes in the most expedient, fair (and profitable) way possible because, again, corps dont like trouble, bad for business.

    I could go on but you get the idea. What do you think?

    • Dan says:

      Is this satire?

    • Philippe says:

      If the US government was a private corporation which owned everything the US government currently owns, ancaps would have no problem with it taxing and making laws and doing most of the other things it currently does.

      • guest says:

        An offer of trade is not taxation.

        And if you’ve traded for all that land you think the US government owns, then that means there are some things that exist in the world which you used to own but don’t, anymore.

        Where’d all that stuff go which other people now own, in your scenario?

        • Philippe says:

          “An offer of trade is not taxation”

          If the US government was a private corporation and owned everything the US government currently owns, ancaps would have no problem with it taxing as it does now, but they would call the tax something else, like a fee or a rent.

          “Where’d all that stuff go which other people now own”

          I’m not sure what you mean by that.

          • Philippe says:

            “land you think the US government owns”

            what I actually mean is property owned by the United States, or the individual States, public property etc.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Who in the government homesteaded or traded for all that “public” land?

              Are you advocating for might makes right?

          • Major-Freedom says:

            That’s not taxation, because BEFORE any ancap decides to move to the US territory, the US government would NOT be taxing them, the way the US government taxes people on land it does not own now.

            • Tel says:

              It does more than that, it imposes forcible searches on land that is owned by private citizens. It even searches the people themselves, takes blood samples, hair samples, etc under force of arms. Sometimes the government just breaks into random houses and shoots people dead, then says, ooopse, wrong house.

              The government also regularly breaks agreements by doing things it said it was not going to do (like interfere with private communication).

              • Major-Freedom says:

                No matter how prevalent that gets, we’re told by the true believers that they are just a few bad apples spoiling the whole basket.

      • Major-Freedom says:

        Philippe:

        “If the US government was a private corporation which owned everything the US government currently owns, ancaps would have no problem with it taxing and making laws and doing most of the other things it currently does.”

        If the US government were a private corporation, then they would have homesteaded and/or freely traded for all the land that comprises US territory, and myself, you, and everyone else would have agreed to a contractual relationship at an individual level, each person agreeing to a specific contract that stipulates among other things paying rent.

        This would not be coercive because in this case, each person who is a tenant here is merely respecting the property rights of the homesteader/trader.

        But if the US government were not the sole land owner, which is far more likely even in theory, then it could not enforce payment or rules on lands it does not own.

        The fact that it does, makes the US government immoral, violent, and illegitimate.

        • Philippe says:

          “But if the US government were not the sole land owner, which is far more likely even in theory, then it could not enforce payment or rules on lands it does not own.”

          According to ancap theory it could. All it would have to do is include that stipulation in its contracts.

          • Major-Freedom says:

            What contracts?

            If the other land owners do want to deal with anyone in the US government, then ancap ethics stipulates that they don’t have to. The US government cannot impose by force any contract on the other landowners against their consent.

            You do understand that contracts, in ancap ethics, are only enforceable if both sides actually agreed to the contractual relationship, right?

            It would be like you claiming to be the US government, owning your land, and me being owner of different land, and then you approach me and ask me to enter into a contract where I pay you and you annoy me.

            With ancap ethics, I can flip you the bird and tell you to go take a long walk off a short pier. I would not have to enter into any contract with you if I don’t want to.

            • Philippe says:

              “If the other land owners do want to deal with anyone in the US government, then ancap ethics stipulates that they don’t have to”

              But anyone in the US uses property owned by the US (or individual States) in one way or another, usually every day. You have to just to get around (roads), or to receive basic utilities such as electricity. In ancap world people would have to enter into a contract with the private US corporation/government in order to do so.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                “But anyone in the US uses property owned by the US (or individual States) in one way or another, usually every day.”

                Ancap ethics states that IF A does NOT want to “use” any property from another property owner, then they don’t have to, and of course they won’t have to pay any asking price of the property owner who charges for use.

                In today’s world, nobody in the US government homesteaded or freely traded for the entire continental US territory that you claim generates a “payment for use” obligation on the part of the citizenry.

                In an ancap world, if you do use the land owned by someone else, and that someone else requires payment, then ancap ethics says yes you ought to pay the owner.

              • Philippe says:

                “Ancap ethics states that IF A does NOT want to “use” any property from another property owner, then they don’t have to”

                But you can’t avoid using US property in one way or another if you live in the US.

                “nobody in the US government homesteaded or freely traded for the entire continental US territory”

                US property doesn’t belong to the individuals in the government, it belongs to the United States, which belongs to the citizens.

                If you look at something like a road, you can see that that land has been what you call “homesteaded”, i.e. transformed.

              • Philippe says:

                *But you can’t avoid using US property or State property, etc (public property).

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “But you can’t avoid using US property in one way or another if you live in the US.”

                What do you mean “US property”? If you mean property allegedly owned by the government, ancap ethics does not recognize might makes right as grounds for who owns what.

                If the territory comprising what is called “the US” were to be identified, in accordance with ancap ethics, as owned only by homesteaders and free traders, then each individual property does in principle have the choice to NOT use anyone else’s lands if they don’t want to, and they won’t be forced to pay anyone else.

                Now, whether or not individuals choose to ask permission to use other people’s lands, and pay accordingly, or perhaps not being charged any money at all, such as what occurs in shopping malls, and some private parks and lands, the owners of which do not charge anything for merely walking on the land, all of this would be up to the individual.

                Sure, it might be the case for an individual that in order for him or her to get something they otherwise could not get by being a self-sufficient and totally self-contained producer, that they would benefit by incurring costs voluntarily to use another person’s land. To the extent that this takes place, then the focus becomes the property rights of those other individuals, who are of course people as well, who have their own plans and desires for their lands.

                Each individual in a context of ancap ethics would not be legally obligated to pay anyone else anything if they choose to NOT use anyone else’s property.

                “nobody in the US government homesteaded or freely traded for the entire continental US territory”

                “US property doesn’t belong to the individuals in the government, it belongs to the United States, which belongs to the citizens.”

                That is not concrete. That is vague and doesn’t mean anything in terms of which specific actions specific individuals can and cannot do.

                I am labelled as a “citizen” but clearly I cannot just build a house in the middle of central park. I must, at the threat of violence from the people in government, obey their rules.

                Thus, yes the people in government are claiming ownership over how that land will be used.

                “If you look at something like a road, you can see that that land has been what you call “homesteaded”, i.e. transformed.”

                If you consider the unseen, and learn of how those roads were financed, and whether or not there were homesteaders or free traders prior, then it is not obvious that the road builders or who paid them are the rightful owners, according to ancap ethics.

                “But you can’t avoid using US property or State property, etc (public property).”

                Ancap ethics rejects claims that public property is owned by the government, or 51% of the people through state violence.

              • Philippe says:

                If you live in the US you can’t avoid using public (US, State, government) property in one way or another. If the US government was a private corporation in ancap world, you would be obliged to enter into a contract with it, or to pay it, given the above.

                “ancap ethics does not recognize might makes right as grounds for who owns what”

                It does really, given that the initial act of appropriation requires the use or threat of force to assert the claim of ownership against others.

                Regarding justifications for the asserted ownership claim: land is not produced by anyone, so the ancap can not claim to own it by having produced it. Labor mixing doesn’t work as a logical justification either; it rests upon a non sequitur in which mixing labor with land somehow makes the uncreated land equivalent to the created products of labor.

                Also, you could murder an entire indian village, then claim ownership of the land, pass it down to your descendant called, say, Major Freedom, who would then claim that he came to own the land through peaceful homesteading because no prior owners ever turned up to claim it.

                “I am labelled as a “citizen” but clearly I cannot just build a house in the middle of central park”

                Individual company shareholders usually can’t build a house on the company premises either.

                “Ancap ethics rejects claims that public property is owned by 51% of the people through state violence.”

                A public company belongs to all the shareholders, but if you own 51% of the shares you can exercise control over the company. This is because such companies use majority voting, like countries.

              • Philippe says:

                *A public company (or any company owned by shareholders)

              • Ben B says:

                “It does really, given that the initial act of appropriation requires the use or threat of force to assert the claim of ownership against others.”

                You’ve erroneously synthesized two actions into one. The act of appropriation is antecedent to the act of defending one’s appropriated property. Thus, there is no “might makes right” because the initial act of appropriation does not involve the use of force.

                “Regarding justifications for the asserted ownership claim: land is not produced by anyone, so the ancap can not claim to own it by having produced it. Labor mixing doesn’t work as a logical justification either; it rests upon a non sequitur in which mixing labor with land somehow makes the uncreated land equivalent to the created products of labor.”

                Why does the mixing of labor with uncreated land have to be equivalent to the created products of labor in order for it to be justified as someone’s homesteaded property?

                “Also, you could murder an entire indian village, then claim ownership of the land, pass it down to your descendant called, say, Major Freedom, who would then claim that he came to own the land through peaceful homesteading because no prior owners ever turned up to claim it.”

                No, this is incorrect. If it is revealed that MF’s property was acquired through aggression against another, and there are no longer any living descendants of the victim, then the property becomes unowned.

              • Ben B says:

                The property becomes unowned and it can not be homesteaded by MF’s descendents.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “If you live in the US you can’t avoid using public (US, State, government) property in one way or another.”

                Ancap ethics rejects your claim that might makes right.

                Ancap ethics rejects your claim that the government owns any land.

                “If the US government was a private corporation in ancap world, you would be obliged to enter into a contract with it, or to pay it, given the above.”

                The above is not a given. In ancap ethics, you are not obligated to use and pay for use anyone else’s lands.

                You keep claiming, fallaciously, that people cannot avoid using other people’s lands. But that is clearly false, since a person can indeed choose to not use anyone else’s lands, but their own. That is a choice that an individual can make.

                If the government were a private corporation the members of which homesteaded and/or freely traded for the entire territory that you call the “US”, then that would imply that my existence here presupposes that either I am a trespasser, or I have entered into a contract with said corporation to pay to use the land that I am using for living or business purposes.

                But because the government did NOT homestead or freely traded for the land that you call the “US”, it means that ancap ethics rejects any “pay me taxes” claims of anyone in government.

                “ancap ethics does not recognize might makes right as grounds for who owns what”

                “It does really, given that the initial act of appropriation requires the use or threat of force to assert the claim of ownership against others.”

                False. An act of originally appropriating a piece of land is not violent at all, because by definition there is no chance of anyone’s property rights are being violated in such an act.

                What you are talking about is SUBSEQUENT to the ownership right coming into existence. The ownership right comes into existence, according to ancap ethics, in the act of homesteading. It does not come into existence upon the first successful defense of it from trespassing or invasion of others.

                So no, ancap ethics is NOT based on “might makes right.” It is based on peaceful homesteading and free trade.

                The government on the other hand IS based on might makes right, because the government claims exclusive control over lands that it did not homestead nor trade for.

                “Regarding justifications for the asserted ownership claim: land is not produced by anyone, so the ancap can not claim to own it by having produced it. Labor mixing doesn’t work as a logical justification either; it rests upon a non sequitur in which mixing labor with land somehow makes the uncreated land equivalent to the created products of labor.”

                False. Homesteaded land is no longer in its original natural state.

                Land is in fact altered by homesteading. The resulting farms, parking lots, paved areas, etc, are in fact “produced”, because such lands did not exist prior in nature. The latitude and longitude existed prior. But that isn’t what land is. Land is not an unchanged given.

                Your claim that land is not created is false. Labor mixed with land does indeed create something new. The reason why city lands look different from natural wilderness lands is because humans value cities more than wilderness. City lands are produced lands.

                “Also, you could murder an entire indian village, then claim ownership of the land, pass it down to your descendant called, say, Major Freedom, who would then claim that he came to own the land through peaceful homesteading because no prior owners ever turned up to claim it.”

                No, ancap ethics prohibits murder.

                If homesteaders are murdered, and the murderer is not brought to justice, and he sells the land, illegally, to another person or people, then no, that new property claimant is not a homesteader. The homesteaders were murdered.

                If you propose the scenario of land being stolen, then given or sold, and then the murdered’s heirs cannot be located, then you are describing perfectly the US government’s actions.

                If you think this is unjust, then you are claiming the US government’s actions against the European and Native homesteaders is unjust.

                If the heirs cannot be found, then the only possible solution that doesn’t create new victims, those who had no role in the theft or murder, would be letting bygones be bygones, and from here on, continue to seek prohibition of murder and land theft.

                “Individual company shareholders usually can’t build a house on the company premises either.”

                That’s because it is in the contract they signed that they cannot. The contract they signed has specific rights and privileges that the individual shareholder agreed to.

                No such contract exists between Obama or his goons, and every American.

                “Ancap ethics rejects claims that public property is owned by 51% of the people through state violence.”

                “A public company belongs to all the shareholders, but if you own 51% of the shares you can exercise control over the company. This is because such companies use majority voting, like countries.”

                Not a good analogy, because for a private corporation, 51% of the shareholders cannot vote to impose rules on and payments from OTHER private companies and lands, against the consent of the owners of those lands.

                The US government on the other hand DOES do this.

              • guest says:

                … somehow makes the uncreated land equivalent to the created products of labor.

                Even the “created products of labor” are uncreated – all labor does is transform resources.

                So, if you want to apply your logic to land, you also have to apply it to the fruits of labor.

                Answering your objection more specifically, MOST land can be used to produce what fertile land can produced – *if* it is sufficiently modified.

                My point is that it is not the land, itself, that contains the value; Rather, the reason individuals value any piece of land is ability to satisfy individuals’ preferences.

                Maybe in order for even greater food production to be made possible, profit-seeking entrepreneurs should turn otherwise hostile deserts into greenhouses with the aid of hydroponics and living arrangements should be built underground to make them cooler.

                You’re not limited to growing food on certain naturally-occuring types of land.

                A laissez-faire price system would, over time, decrease the costs of transforming otherwise useless land.

                Government interventions hinder that process.

              • Lurker says:

                “You keep claiming, fallaciously, that people cannot avoid using other people’s lands.”

                People cannot avoid using public land that is communally owned. This happens the minute they step onto a public footpath or drive onto a public highway. These public amenities cannot and should not be sold to a private buyer without the consent of the community. This consent will rarely be given because most citizens believe that public land should remain public rather than private.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Lurker:

                “People cannot avoid using public land that is communally owned.”

                Yes they can. They can choose to not use any public lands if they want.

                If people are forced to pay for them whether they choose to use them or not, and as a result they might as well use the crap that is available which is better than nothing, that doesn’t establish an obligation for future theft of money.

                People in ancap ethics are not FORCED TO PAY for things they don’t use.

                “This happens the minute they step onto a public footpath or drive onto a public highway. These public amenities cannot and should not be sold to a private buyer without the consent of the community.”

                They can and they should be immediately released to the first come first served homesteaders.

                “This consent will rarely be given because most citizens believe that public land should remain public rather than private.”

                Most people used to believe slavery was justified.

              • Samson Corwell says:

                If you mean property allegedly owned by the government…

                It’s called “public property”, not “government property”. Quit obfuscating.

          • Tel says:

            According to ancap theory it could. All it would have to do is include that stipulation in its contracts.

            They would firstly have to get people to agree to those contracts, but more than that, the US government has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to honour the contracts it does make. This has been demonstrated as the House cannot get key people to testify, and cannot get access to key documents, thus the House is unable to honour its obligation to provide oversight.

            It was demonstrated again as the government claimed it was not collecting private communication but turns out actually it is.

      • Tel says:

        Err the US government currently claims ownership of the people as well, without such claim there can be no “war on drugs” nor can there be any compulsory healthcare, nor any positive rights.

        Under the NAP the government would have to abandon all those things.

    • K.P. says:

      That could actually be a preferable situation. Hundred to thousands of micro-states competing for “citizens” sounds like a good check on power and as a way to maximize cultural differences.

      Of course, that’d be nothing like Game of Thrones, but that’s okay.

    • Scott D says:

      “What do you think?”

      I think that the imaginations of science fiction writers and Hollywood have magically imbued business entities (pejoratively called “corporations”) with attributes that are the sole realm of the state. People have this idea that corporations are all about dominance of some sphere of society. This only becomes true when the state is introduced into the picture, and is utilized by corporate interests to limit competition (licensing and regulations), lobby for resources (subsidies), or force consumers to buy a product or face punishment (Obamacare).

      In fact, with a few glaring exceptions, such as the banking sector, corporations have tended to become smaller and more specialized within a niche, rather than becoming the enormous globe-spanning conglomerates envisioned by Philip K. Dick. That’s because innovation often requires specialization. It is difficult to be very good at, say, designing clothing while also being good at selling car insurance and growing soybeans, but that’s exactly what scifi tells us is already happening. Even Wal-Mart has a specific niche. There just happens to be a very large demand for cheap consumer goods.

  7. Raja says:

    I can no longer avoid reading “Chaos Theory”. This discussion has gotten way more interesting than I had anticipated it ever could get.

  8. Hank says:

    I though this would be better formatted here. In a footnote of a paper, Hulsmann gives a lot of resources regarding private production of defense and security. Here it is:

    See for instance Gustave de Molinari, “De la production de la sécurite,” Journal des Economistes 8, no. 22 (1849); Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market (Kansas City: Sheed and Andrews, 1977); idem, For A New Liberty (New York: Macmillan, 1978); Morris and Linda Tannehill, The Market for Liberty (New York: Laissez Faire Books, 1984); Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989); idem, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993); idem, “The Private Production of Defense,” Essays in Political Economy (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1998); Bruce Benson, The Enterprise of Law (San Francisco: Pacific Institute, 1991); St. Blankertz, “Eingreifen statt Übergreifen,” in Fritz Fliszar, ed. Freiheit: die unbequeme Idee (Stuttgart 1995); idem, Wie liberal kann Staat sein? (St. Augustin: Academia, 1997).

    On denationalizing defense and private armies, see Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, “Deterrence vs. Disarmament: The Practical Considerations,” Caliber 9, no. 5 (1981); idem, “On Defense,” Free World Chronicle II, no. 2 (1984); idem, “The Great Libertarian Defense Debate: A Critique of Robert Poole’s Defending a Free Society,” Nomos 3, nos. 2 and 3, (1985); idem, “A Practical Case for Denationalizing Defense,” The Pragmatist 3, nos. 5 and 6 (1986).

    For historical instances of private law enforcement, see also John C. Lester and D.L. Wilson, Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth, and Disbandment (New York: Neale, 1905); Jeremiah P. Shalloo, Private Police (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1933); William C. Wooldridge, Uncle Sam, the Monopoly Man (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1970); Joseph R. Peden, “Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1, no. 2 (1977): 81–95; Diego Gambetta, The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993); Martin van Creveld, The Rise and Decline of the State (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999), chap. 1.

  9. John says:

    This seems like a very interesting academic idea, but it is difficult for me to imagine this actually operating in the real world In any way superior to the current system. For one thing, the notion that insurance companies will efficiently provide for a nation’s defense and pay off claims when required is one of which the average person may be fairly skeptical. For years insurance companies routinely refused to pay off life insurance claims, and essentially required their customers to sue them. After suit began, or after the customers won the suit, the companies paid. Customers without the wherewithal to sue got a fraction of what they were owed or nothing. It was only with the advent of punitive damages for bad faith denial of insurance contract that the insurance companies began to pay. Today, anyone who has health insurance knows what insurance companies do to avoid paying for treatment. An insurance company is a money machine; it is there to make money. If it can make money by denying the service or money it promised, it will unhesitatingly do so. Try collecting on your earthquake insurance when there has been a major quake in California. Easy it is not. In addition, insurance companies tend to maintain more or less the same policies across the industry so the notion the market can fix this problem is I think a little fanciful. All this goes on with the significant power of government regulation looming over the insurance companies’ conduct. Yet we believe this sort of entity will take the billions of dollars it would need to receive from its customers and provide for the common defense of the land against a modern, European style army commanded by experienced military officers? We believe it will somehow pay on claims if part of the country is overrun. Without any enforcement mechanism other than the market?! On the theory that if it doesn’t at some later point the market will discipline it? You know, I think proponents would have to marshal a lot more evidence in their favor before that argument becomes sufficiently persuasive to scrap the Marine Corps.

    • Matt M says:

      ” Today, anyone who has health insurance knows what insurance companies do to avoid paying for treatment.”

      And yet, people still flock to health insurance companies, treating it as a MUST OWN item.

      Perhaps if the industry wasn’t subject to such burdensome regulations, this would represent an amazing profit opportunity. But it is, so it doesn’t.

    • K.P. says:

      Then don’t simply “scrap the Marine Corps”, there’s no reason why you can’t shrink the government and build up private or local defense agencies concurrently.

    • Ben B says:

      What kind of evidence would be sufficient enough for you to give us the green light?

      I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that you want to see empirical evidence. Of course, we can’t “test” this situation if we can’t establish an AnCap society. Would you be willing to allow peaceful secession from the State?

      • John says:

        I see the problem. I think there is some historical evidence out there with regard to mercenary defense forces beholden only to those that pay them, as well as with regard to the conduct of insurance companies. (I do not believe there is reason to think that government regulation causes the problematic conduct of insurance companies that is the subject of so many complaints — the regulations were a response to the conduct.). That evidence does not in my view support the argument that insurer-paid private defense forces are workable in the real world, but it is not the kind of first hand evidence that would exist if one could visit Ancapistan. To answer your question, would I favor allowing, say, Texas to peacefully secede from the United States if its citizens voted that way, and then to set up a libertarian state or community or rules, or however one should put it? Honestly, I don’t exactly know. Before I started reading this blog I would have thought the idea was ludicrous. But if people voted that way, and it wasn’t so that they could continue with some weird practice generally abhorrent to civilized people (like slavery), but simply because they preferred a libertarian society, I’m not totally clear on why they shouldn’t be allowed to do that. I hate to cop out, but I’d like to think more about it.

        • guest says:

          I found these to be helpful, with regard to the claim that governments cause their own problems:

          Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul)
          [www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M

          Dominick Armentano: The Case for Repealing Antitrust Laws
          [www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBT-fnJsfo0

          The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 8 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
          Myths and Facts About Big Business
          [www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGeA1Sbd4XM

    • Dan says:

      “Yet we believe this sort of entity will take the billions of dollars it would need to receive from its customers and provide for the common defense of the land against a modern, European style army commanded by experienced military officers? We believe it will somehow pay on claims if part of the country is overrun. Without any enforcement mechanism other than the market?! On the theory that if it doesn’t at some later point the market will discipline it?”

      I’ll just make a few points.

      1. Let’s say the US territory becomes an anarcho-capitalist society. The insurance companies could hire defense agencies to defend against attacks from European style armies. In fact, they could do so much more efficiently, as they wouldn’t be throwing billions and trillions of dollars down the tubes fighting useless wars, making crony contracts to build things they don’t need, stationing troops in over 100 countries, and on and on. They would have an incentive to maximize their profits which means they would want to reduce the risk of payouts as low as possible (prevent attacks from occurring) and keep costs as low as possible without increasing their risk of payouts. There is no reason to believe that without Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, and Obama that we’d suddenly be at risk of attack.

      2. Let’s say part of the country was overrun, though. What do you think would happen to an insurance company that refused to payout their claims? Do you think the rest of their clients would continue making payments? What happens to an insurance company that loses all its clients?

      3. Why wouldn’t people anticipate this objection about insurance companies not paying out? It gets raised an awful lot, so I’d think people would plan for that contingency before signing a contract. For example, if I was an insurance company trying to attract customers, I could write a clause into my contracts that in the event that there is a dispute over a payout, the bank will put a freeze on those funds until a third party arbitrator, that we would choose beforehand, had decided the case. Then the bank would release the funds to the winner of the case.

      4. When you come up with a complaint against why a business couldn’t work based off of voluntary transactions, I’d encourage you to think about the problem from the perspective of a business owner. For example, “X won’t work because they could do Y.” So X will never get that person as a customer as long as problem Y is still in play, but if he can offer a solution to alleviate the fears of Y from ever happening, then we can move on to a mutually beneficial exchange.

      5. States fail to prevent invasions from other States all the time. So, there is no guarantee that just having a State reducing your chances of being conquered to begin with. What we do see, though, is that prosperous countries tend to avoid invasions. And the more free market a country is the more prosperous they tend to be.

    • Dan says:

      Also, you might find this interesting. Start watching this debate between an anarchist vs a minarchist from the 56:30 mark on. Molyneux, IMO, does a pretty good job at explaining why your fears about insurance companies not paying claims is unfounded. He doesn’t talk about that specifically, but you’ll be able to see how it applies just the same.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=kp&v=2gK2xB9F9Ag

      • John says:

        I guess I think a lot of these ideas fly in the face of what we know about the world. I don’t know that there really is much reason to think a private security force is going to be much more efficient or effective than a public force. Private prisons do not appear to be more efficient than public prisons, and there is some reason to think they may be more abusive due to their hiring less well trained personnel to save money. Private security companies like Blackwater do not seem superior to public forces in the real world. Although controversy exists about the claim, many nonpartisan experts insist that Medicare is more efficient insurance than private insurance because private insurers have substantial administrative costs trying to deny their customers insurance. I guess my reaction to the claim that there is no reason to think a private mercenary force paid by insurance companies wouldn’t be as effective as the armed forces of a nation is that there is no reason to think it would be, and a lot of reasons to think it wouldn’t be, such as, for starters, the difficulty of making the insurance companies keep their commitments, and the problems that history suggests plague nearly any mercenary force when fighting a national army. You might also add, how is anyone going to control these private armed mercenaries? It’s not just a question of how effective such a force would be, but whether it would quickly turn on its masters. History suggests that is a very distinct possibility.

        As for individuals trying to protect themselves from these eventualities through contracts (as Stefan Molynieux suggests), how will you ever enforce these contracts? Today, it is often difficult for individuals and businesses to enforce contracts (this I know about from my work) and America has a very substantial contract enforcement mechanism through, if you’ll pardon the expression, “violence.” The notion that the market will discipline contract breakers sufficiently to make actual enforcement mechanisms unnecessary is to me again at odds with what we know about how people and businesses really operate. A business exists to make money; it knows nothing else. If it can make money by breaching its contractual obligations, that’s what it will do. If it also has a lot of firearms, that may make it, or its instrumentalities, substantially bolder in this regard. Before enough customers get mad at a powerful business or insurance company to make a difference … well, let’s just say it may be too late.

        Put differently, what do I think would happen to insurance companies that don’t pay on their policies — very little, at least in the short term. That is pretty much the uniform American experience with insurance companies. Don’t get me wrong, the free market is great, but Molynieux’s vision that the free market will quickly penalize companies that don’t perform seems at odds with reality. It is difficult for individuals to make informed smart judgments about large businesses, and they often don’t. Investors are wrong all the time, and it often takes years to figure that out. It takes a long time for the market to discipline a company, and when the companies all have more or less the same policies and practices, it takes even longer. By that time, a war can be lost several times over.

        Now personally I think somebody like me, a more or less conventional thinker, has to keep an open mind about these things. The notions of private defense and private law are for me very very hard to swallow. But they’ve never really been tried on a large scale and I wouldn’t say I’m sure about my opinions. But when I see someone like Molynieux pronounce with absolute certainty that everything will be just fine in this world of private defense forces and armed mercenaries beholden only to insurance companies, I have to say I think he should also keep a little more of an open mind and consider just how catastrophic it would be if he were dead wrong.

        • guest says:

          Private security companies like Blackwater do not seem superior to public forces in the real world.

          Blackwater has government-granted privileges. That’s the problem.

          Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul)
          [www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M

        • Dan says:

          John, I’m not sure if you understand what we mean by private companies if you bring up Blackwater and private prisons in the US. What you’re calling private businesses, I’d call fascist businesses.

          “You might also add, how is anyone going to control these private armed mercenaries? It’s not just a question of how effective such a force would be, but whether it would quickly turn on its masters. History suggests that is a very distinct possibility.”

          How are we going to control monopoly armed mercenaries? It’s not just a question of how effective such a force would be, but whether it would quickly turn on its masters. History suggests that is a very distinct possibility.

          “As for individuals trying to protect themselves from these eventualities through contracts (as Stefan Molynieux suggests), how will you ever enforce these contracts?”

          How will we force the State to protect us and our property? Do they reimburse me my money they force me to pay for their protection if they fail? They don’t even have a contract with me to pay out anything if they fail.

          “Today, it is often difficult for individuals and businesses to enforce contracts (this I know about from my work) and America has a very substantial contract enforcement mechanism through, if you’ll pardon the expression, “violence.”’

          You point to the failures of the State as if that means a free market system would be even worse, but you don’t even attempt to explain why that would be.

          “The notion that the market will discipline contract breakers sufficiently to make actual enforcement mechanisms unnecessary is to me again at odds with what we know about how people and businesses really operate.”

          What? Who said actual enforcement mechanisms would become unnecessary? Or do you just mean violence is the only actual enforcement mechanism that counts? I gave you an example that you didn’t even attempt to address. I said a contract could be written where the bank would put a freeze on funds until a third party arbitrator decided the case. Then the bank would release the funds to whoever won. Why is that or similar provisions impossible in your mind?

          “A business exists to make money; it knows nothing else. If it can make money by breaching its contractual obligations, that’s what it will do.”

          So it is your view that a company like Amazon will just take everyone’s money for their products, but then not ship anything out, and that nobody will be able to do a damn thing about it, and people will keep paying them for that service, if we had a free market society? Why businesses have customer service departments must be baffling to you.

          “If it also has a lot of firearms, that may make it, or its instrumentalities, substantially bolder in this regard. Before enough customers get mad at a powerful business or insurance company to make a difference … well, let’s just say it may be too late.”

          You mean like the State?

          “Put differently, what do I think would happen to insurance companies that don’t pay on their policies — very little, at least in the short term.”

          So, what incentive would I have to keep paying an insurance company that I just saw blatantly screw over a bunch of their customers on such a massive scale? Do you just think these things without having any reasons?

          “That is pretty much the uniform American experience with insurance companies. Don’t get me wrong, the free market is great, but Molynieux’s vision that the free market will quickly penalize companies that don’t perform seems at odds with reality.”

          No, it actually doesn’t. Tons of businesses fail every single day for not performing or satisfying customers.

          “It is difficult for individuals to make informed smart judgments about large businesses, and they often don’t.”

          That’s vague as hell. Why, exactly, would it be difficult to see such a blatant and massive breach of contract in the scenario we are talking about? Start by explaining that to me.

          “Investors are wrong all the time, and it often takes years to figure that out. It takes a long time for the market to discipline a company, and when the companies all have more or less the same policies and practices, it takes even longer. By that time, a war can be lost several times over.”

          Dude, businesses rise and fall on a daily basis. What are you talking about?

          “Now personally I think somebody like me, a more or less conventional thinker, has to keep an open mind about these things. The notions of private defense and private law are for me very very hard to swallow. But they’ve never really been tried on a large scale and I wouldn’t say I’m sure about my opinions. But when I see someone like Molynieux pronounce with absolute certainty that everything will be just fine in this world of private defense forces and armed mercenaries beholden only to insurance companies, I have to say I think he should also keep a little more of an open mind and consider just how catastrophic it would be if he were dead wrong.”

          I agree people need to keep an open mind. Especially, on topics they’ve never even studied. But people like Murphy and Molyneux aren’t close-minded. They actual spent a lot of time studying economics and political philosophy in order to arrive at their conclusions.

          • John says:

            I agree, at least with regard to Bob, he’s clearly an expert economist. I’m not sure about Molyneux; I had some trouble making sense out of what he was saying, but that could be me.

            I hear you on the notion that private prisons or security would be different in the libertarian world. I’ve seen that argument a lot to discount experience with these types of businesses in the current system, and that may be legitimate. But it is some of the only empirical evidence we’ve actually got about the workability of these ideas. Still, maybe it’s not such good evidence.

            On the argument that if we’re not confident armed mercenaries employed by insurance companies won’t turn on their masters, then we can’t be sure the armed forces of the United States won’t mutiny against civilian control, the evidence is that at least in this area, the armed forces have so far been more or less perfect since the US began. I guess one could say the civil war was a kind of mutiny, but that was engineered by civilian authorities in the south (or north, depending on your viewpoint). So we know that the current system controls the military well, and is effective at defending the nation. I don’t think it’s a strong argument to suggest that because the state has all these weapons and it’s behaved well (in this one regard at least), private mercenaries will also behave well. Historically, private mercenaries are notoriously less relaible than national armies; that’s almost proverbial. They’re also harder to control much of the time. We also know that businesses in the current system tend towards conduct that makes them the most money, and often cut corners related to safety and other performance issues if they think they can make money that way. (Say, GM.) The market can discipline them of course, but that discipline often takes time. This is one of my bases for expressing some real concern about the workability of private defense firms managed by private insurers.

            On the point about contract enforcement, I think I didn’t make myself clear. When I said it’s hard to enforce contracts today, even with the substantial enforcement mechanisms of the state, I wasn’t suggesting that’s a failure of the state — that’s just the nature of business. If a business can get out of a bad deal without paying on its obligations, it has every incentive to do so, and generally will. The current enforcement mechanisms of the state — the courts — do a relatively decent job of policing this conduct. I don’t know what in the Libertarian world is going to substitute for the coercive power of the state to force businesses and individuals to make good on their promises. The notion that they’ll routinely do it voluntarily verges on the fantastic in my view, and ignores the common experience of mankind. The market itself may in fact provide some enforcement, but how fast and how effectively? Companies now can engage in some ugly conduct for long periods of time before it comes to light. Car companies, coal mining companies, oil companies, insurance companies might be some examples.

            I recognize your argument that hundreds of companies fail every day and that’s true. But that doesn’t mean the market disciplines misconduct quickly. The reason companies generally fail is undercapitalization. Where a large, powerful company is involved, with a product people need, it can take a while for their practices to garner sufficient scrutiny to become an issue. Not to pick on insurance companies (no, I wasn’t frightened by one as a child), but they’re a handy example. Let’s take your idea that whenever an insurance company didn’t pay a claim, a customer could resort to arbitration, and the insurance company would have to pay because the funds to pay the claim would have been placed in escrow in a third-party bank, which would be under contract to deliver the money if the customer won the arbitration.

            First, I don’t think it’s likely many insurance companies would ever agree to keep the funds needed in escrow, but let’s leave that aside. Theoretically the same solution you suggest obtains right now. If an insurance company doesn’t pay a claim, the customer can go to arbitration or court, win, and the insurance company has to pay or face the threat of “violence” from the government.

            Yet we see insurance companies sometimes not paying, or paying less than they owe, or forcing customers into just such arbitrations. Why? Because it make financial sense to do so. Many customers just won’t arbitrate, the insurance company has much greater resources than an individual, and may be able to delay things or even win, or may be able to force a settlement for less than the whole amount. I don’t know why this would be very different in Ancapistan.

            Moreover, in Ancapistan, there is no coercive power of the state. Under those circumstances, there’s not even a guarantee a bank would honor an escrow contract of the type you envision, since the bank would certainly have more interest in keeping a huge insurance company– with sufficient funds to bankroll a small army–happy than it would any individual. And it’s hard for one, or even hundreds or thousands of individuals to make a sufficient fuss for the market to really take notice. Or at least notice fast. And it’s very unlikely any of the insurance companies large enough to be worth making such a contract with would ever would make such a contract in the first place. Indeed, they’d almost certainly all decide never to offer such a contract. What would stop them? Even if a competitor could get through the barriers to entry, it would face the combined might of the other companies. And their armies.

            I’m not suggesting private defense or law is unworkable (although private law strikes me as coming pretty close), and I know there are some arguments out there about why monopolies simply wouldn’t happen in a perfect free market, but I think the issues are enormously complex and difficult, and it is by no means self-evident that such a system wouldn’t be a whole lot worse than what we have now. In other words, I’m not sure “statists” are simply crazy or venal in opposing some of these ideas; they may just be worried.

            • Dan says:

              “I hear you on the notion that private prisons or security would be different in the libertarian world. I’ve seen that argument a lot to discount experience with these types of businesses in the current system, and that may be legitimate. But it is some of the only empirical evidence we’ve actually got about the workability of these ideas. Still, maybe it’s not such good evidence.”

              It’s not evidence at all. Those are examples of private companies in name only. They are private/public partnerships ie fascist companies.

              “On the argument that if we’re not confident armed mercenaries employed by insurance companies won’t turn on their masters, then we can’t be sure the armed forces of the United States won’t mutiny against civilian control, the evidence is that at least in this area, the armed forces have so far been more or less perfect since the US began.”

              The point I was making is that military coups happen all the time with States. So why do you think it will not happen here, and why do you think only a State can prevent that from happening?

              “On the point about contract enforcement, I think I didn’t make myself clear. When I said it’s hard to enforce contracts today, even with the substantial enforcement mechanisms of the state, I wasn’t suggesting that’s a failure of the state — that’s just the nature of business.”

              Yes, and I was saying it is a failure of the State. They are the ones in charge of enforcing contracts in this current system, yet they fail all the time to do so. Pointing to these failures says nothing against free markets.

              “I don’t know what in the Libertarian world is going to substitute for the coercive power of the state to force businesses and individuals to make good on their promises. The notion that they’ll routinely do it voluntarily verges on the fantastic in my view, and ignores the common experience of mankind.”

              I would suggest reading those books I recommended to you on another thread.

              “First, I don’t think it’s likely many insurance companies would ever agree to keep the funds needed in escrow, but let’s leave that aside.”

              If they can’t provide assurances that they won’t break their contracts then people won’t sign contracts with them. They’ll never even get started as a company to begin with if people can’t trust them. And people who can provide these assurances will take the entire market. I’m sure Amazon would be a lot more profitable if they could just take people’s money and not send out products, but their customers aren’t going to accept that deal.

              “Moreover, in Ancapistan, there is no coercive power of the state. Under those circumstances, there’s not even a guarantee a bank would honor an escrow contract of the type you envision, since the bank would certainly have more interest in keeping a huge insurance company– with sufficient funds to bankroll a small army–happy than it would any individual.”

              Why would customers do business with a bank that would break their contracts in this way? How would they become a successful bank if nobody could trust them? You need to explain how these banks and insurance companies are going to become so big and have lots of customers when they are so untrustworthy. The problems you envision don’t even make the slightest bit of sense while you skip this explanation.

              “Indeed, they’d almost certainly all decide never to offer such a contract. What would stop them?”

              They wouldn’t have a business to begin with if they couldn’t offer assurances they weren’t going to screw over the customers. That would stop them.

              “In other words, I’m not sure “statists” are simply crazy or venal in opposing some of these ideas; they may just be worried.”

              I don’t think they are crazy. I used to be a liberal and thought libertarians were wrong at one time in my life. It wasn’t until I took the time to study Austrian economics and libertarianism that I became convinced of their ideas. Even though most people are very confident when it comes to their economic ideas and their political philosophy, most people don’t ever study these topics at all. So, I don’t think these people are crazy, I think they are ignorant, and that ignorance usually extends to the political and economic views they’ve adopted for themselves.

            • guest says:

              On the argument that if we’re not confident armed mercenaries employed by insurance companies won’t turn on their masters, then we can’t be sure the armed forces of the United States won’t mutiny against civilian control, the evidence is that at least in this area, the armed forces have so far been more or less perfect since the US began.

              This isn’t even remotely true.

              Our armed forces are constantly:

              – manning checkpoints between states;

              – fighting wars which have not been declared by Congress;

              – committing unlawful searches and seizures in an unconstitutional war on people putting whatever they want in their bodies;

              – for the army’s part: merely being funded for more than two years straight, in defiance of the Constitution;

              – enforcing unconstitutional environmental “laws”;

              – violating the 2nd Amendment by enforcing registry of firearms;

              – collecting pensions;

              – now enforcing unconstitutional health insurance “laws”;

              – violating individuals’ rights in the event of natural disasters (such as “Shelter in Place”);

              All of these are done with the threat of death. If you don’t comply with these clearly unconstitutional “laws”, they are prepared to kill you.

              I come from the Right. I understand that there are a lot of well-meaning, patriotic, otherwise freedom-loving soldiers in our military.

              But they don’t even care to read the Constitution for themselves. They wouldn’t know what an unconstitutional law looks like because they are trained to follow chains of command, rather than the Constitutiion, itself, to which they swear an oath.

              They don’t know that any oath in opposition to the oath they take to uphold the Constitution is a violation of the only oath that matters in their capacity as government officials.

              And this isn’t even touching the issue of having to understand whether or not, or to what extent, the Constitution is based on natural law, from which all legitimate laws must derive.

              • John says:

                On the issue of how companies can get so big when they’re untrustworthy in some ways, that happens in the world as we know it. This is not to say that companies are “bad.” That would be silly. But they do things they judge to be in their financial interest. Since their central purpose as a rule is the acquisition of money and size, they have an incentive to cut certain corners to gain money. And I at least am convinced by the empirical evidence that they sometimes do. Banks, insurance companies, car companies, etc have all been known to maintain some pretty appalling practices until caught, usually by the press or government. I don’t think it’s an answer to say, well, that can’t happen in a free market — it manifestly does happen, unless the theory is that the market in our world is Insufficiently free to allow it to effectively regulate business conduct. That’s fine, but again I have some concerns about arguments that say the empirical evidence we do have from the real world is completely inapplicable to Ancapistan because it will be so totally different from our world. That strikes me as an argument that people themselves will be totally different, and I think that will be hard to accomplish.

                On the control of the military, I’m not sure the conduct being complained of is unconstitutional in the first place, and if everything is going to be based on natural law, well, you’re going to have to figure out what that is, and people have been known to disagree VERY violently on the subject (say, the Civil War). However, my point was not that the army does only good things, or any good things, but that it obeys the civilian authorities to whom it is supposed to be responsible in our system — the president and his subordinates like the secretary of defense. In that regard it has been pretty perfect.

                All the problems you mention about the army doing things you don’t like might well occur with a series of private mercenary armies beholden to the executives of insurance companies. My problem is, could those executives control them as effectively as the structure and government of the US controls the national army. History suggests to me the answer may be no. That was my concern.

              • guest says:

                I think that a lot of your Big Business issues are addressed in the following two videos, if you’re inclined:

                Dominick Armentano: The Case for Repealing Antitrust Laws
                [www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBT-fnJsfo0

                [Audio]
                The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 8 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
                Myths and Facts About Big Business
                [www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGeA1Sbd4XM

  10. Bob Roddis says:

    I’ve long thought it was a mistake for libertarians to use the term “anarchy” to refer to voluntary governance since that word evokes visions of chaos and anomie. There would be “government” pursuant to AnCap that would be funded voluntarily and which would be actually STRONGER than our current government in protecting our rights.Using words like “getting rid of government” I also believe to be problematic. We end up in endless disputes about terminology.

    Yawn.

    • Ben B says:

      Agreed, if you’re going for brevity, try to avoid that terminology, but it’s much less problematic when you have time to actually get into the meat and potatoes.

    • Philippe says:

      “There would be “government” pursuant to AnCap that would be funded voluntarily”

      But almost no one wants to live in ancap world. So ancap world is a supposedly “voluntary” world which almost no one wants.

      • Richie says:

        Non-sequitur.

        • Philippe says:

          You don’t know what a non sequitur is, do you.

          p.s. there is no – between non and sequitur.

          • Richie says:

            I know. You don’t know what a NON SEQUITUR is. Thanks for the grammatical correction lol.

            • Philippe says:

              no, you clearly don’t.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                It is irrelevant to the question of justice how many people believe in it.

                Murder does not become just just because 51% of the population agree to murder others.

                Nobody, not even the magical 51% of the population, have a right to initiate force against anyone in the remaining 49%, including single individuals.

              • Philippe says:

                justice is not necessarily whatever you, MF, say it is, although I know you believe otherwise.

                You want to create a world which almost no one wants to live in. Almost no one thinks that world is just, but that doesn’t matter. Almost no one would voluntarily live in that world if they had the choice, but that doesn’t matter.

                ok.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                If 99% of the people don’t want to live in a world where they can’t enslave people, does not imply that it is just to enslave people.

                No, it is not merely what I personally believe is just, that is justice. It is what reason, logic and evidence lead to, despite my opinion.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Also, it cannot be stressed enough that anarcho-capitalism is not meant to be, nor does it call for in theory, world-wide, universal adoption.

                It only asks that those who do want to be free from state coercion, to be able to do so, which of course includes being able to do so without having their homes threatened with theft/appropriation.

                If you can understand how people can live among each other even though there is individual choice in insurance and private security, then you should be able to understand how those same people can live among each other even though there is individual choice in “state” services.

                Anarcho-capitalism calls for secession for those who want to secede. It’s not demanding that you give up your choice to be a sheep.

              • Philippe says:

                “If 99% of the people don’t want to live in a world where they can’t enslave people, does not imply that it is just to enslave people”

                If one guy called MF wants to live in ancapistan, it does not imply that ancapistan is just.

                “It is what reason, logic and evidence lead to, despite my opinion”

                No, it is just your opinion. You mistake your opinion for the absolute truth, and you mistake sophistry for reasoning. You don’t care about evidence, and your arguments are not logical.

                “Anarcho-capitalism calls for secession for those who want to secede.”

                But that isn’t what you want. What you want is to live in this society, but you also want to be allowed to ignore the law and make up your own personal laws as you please.

              • Richie says:

                Philippe, stop making false claims.

            • Richie says:

              “no, you clearly don’t.”

              Yes, I clearly do. Clearly, you do not. See M_F’s reply.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                OK guys, I think this lovely exchange of ideas in the context of mutual respect and learning, has run its course.

  11. Cody S says:

    Phillipe seems to think we draft or indenture our police forces, or they show up for work through patriotism or sense of duty, rather than the fact that they are paid to do so. Don’t want mercenaries to defend your safety? Ooh. Too late.

    This would be easy to disprove: just announce that the police and US military will no longer be paid for their services, and stop paying them, and see how many show up to defend your safety.

    As for the “If the US government was a private corporation…” stuff, what exactly do you think the US government is? What do you think a “Private Corporation” is, and how does the US government not qualify? Better yet, in what way is that government better than a corporation?

    To pretend that a private corporation is an object of horror whose inherent failings are both unavoidable and inevitably terrible, and then to praise any sort of government at all as in some manner superior to a corporation, is a creative and heinous way to torture logic to death; I congratulate you.

    • Philippe says:

      “stop paying them, and see how many show up to defend your safety”

      How is that an argument? Most might not be able to turn up, because they need money to eat, and to pay their rent/mortgage and other expenses.

      “To pretend that a private corporation is an object of horror whose inherent failings are both unavoidable and inevitably terrible, and then to praise any sort of government at all as in some manner superior to a corporation, is a creative and heinous way to torture logic to death; I congratulate you.”

      But I didn’t do any of those things. You just imagined all of that inside your head.

      • Philippe says:

        “Phillipe seems to think we draft or indenture our police forces, or they show up for work through patriotism or sense of duty”

        I didn’t say that. However, most people do have a sense of patriotism (including many libertarians), and many working in the police do have a sense of duty.

      • Richie says:

        “You just imagined all of that inside your head.”

        No he didn’t.

        • Philippe says:

          I didn’t say:

          “a private corporation is an object of horror whose inherent failings are both unavoidable and inevitably terrible”

          I didn’t “praise any sort of government at all as in some manner superior to a corporation”.

          • Richie says:

            Yes you did.

            • Philippe says:

              Nope. Quote me or stop making false claims.

  12. Ty Fyter says:

    he throws out three examples of real-world insurance companies. Their names? Allstate, State Farm, and Progressive. Uh oh.

    What’s the implications of this? I’m not quite sure what you mean…

    • Matt M says:

      The first two literally have “STATE” in their title, and the third is also the title of a hostile pro-state ideology…

  13. Samson Corwell says:

    Question for you, Bob: Why should I consider PDAs to not constitute a state? Privatization of a state’s function’s isn’t the abolition of it.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      How do you define “State” Samson?

      • Samson Corwell says:

        I normally use the term “state” to mean a distinct political entity in contrast to that political entity’s government. For example, the both the United States and Somaliland are states. The former is both de jure and de facto state whereas the latter is only de facto.

        When I’m speaking with libertarians, I need to switch my meaning. I’d define a state as a governing/enforcement mechanism. Since policies in an ancap setup are laid down by judges/arbitrators, the name for its form of government is kritarchy.

    • Matt M says:

      Because the PDA does not murder you for refusing to patronize it. Next question?

      • Philippe says:

        Of course you’re just talking about imagination land so you can make up anything you want.

        PDAs only murder people who agree to murdered… or just anyone who disagrees with the PDA.

        • Matt M says:

          Mall cops don’t go around murdering customers in malls that don’t purchase security from their company.

          Why should we expect PDAs to be any different?

          You are also talking about imagination land. Only my premises are informed by real life, and yours are informed by science fiction.

          • Philippe says:

            “Mall cops don’t go around murdering customers in malls”

            if they did then real cops would come and take them away.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Unless the forces are funded by the government, like Xe (formerly Blackwater).

              Then rape is justified.

              • Philippe says:

                rape is only justified in your ideal world.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                If “most people” believed rape is ethically just, then in your worldview that you have explained here about what “most people” want, rape would be ethically just.

                In my worldview, rape is never ethically just no matter if 51% vote to make it legal, or if “most people don’t want to life in a rape free world.”

              • Philippe says:

                ‘In my worldview, rape is never ethically just”

                That’s not true. You recommend rape as an ethical, just punishment for rapists.

              • Philippe says:

                “in your worldview that you have explained here about what “most people” want, rape would be ethically just”

                I didn’t say that whatever most people want is necessarily ethically just.

          • Philippe says:

            I’m out taking a stroll across the countryside in ancap world, looking at the butterflies. Then a PDA patrol comes up to me and says: “by being here you are violently aggressing against, raping and enslaving our client. You must cease and desist now or we will shoot you, because some libertarian philosopher said that you can shoot trespassers”.

            I say, “no I’m just out taking a walk. Please leave me alone”. They then kill me.

            • Matt M says:

              And its impossible for government agents to do that?

            • Major-Freedom says:

              I’m taking a stroll outside and find myself standing in Philippe’s house.

              According to Philippe’s ethics, it would be justified for him to call the police to demand I leave or else they will shoot me, because some statist philosopher said that you can use force against trespassers.

              I say “No, I’m just out taking a walk. Please leave me alone.” Then they kill me.

            • Razer says:

              You were unable to grasp self ownership, so I recommend you no venture into anything more advanced before you can handle the very basics. Sorry, but this is beyond your mental grasp. Maybe you can grapple with the NAP and work up from there?

              • K.P. says:

                Does one even need the concept of self-ownership to come to the NAP, or some libertarian system in general?

              • guest says:

                Yes, because without the concept of self-ownership, you don’t have a concept of aggression.

                And having a group of people make up a definition, in the name of “the greater good”, just adds another step before becoming self-defeating.

                (On what basis does this group have the authority to make up definitions for me?

                (If based on my consent, then self-ownership is a prerequisite, and the group’s authority stands or falls on its respect for individual rights.

                (If based on majority, then my consent was never required, and “aggression” means whatever the majority wants it to mean in that particular time period.)

              • K.P. says:

                Thanks guest,

                How about leaving “ownership” as merely a relation between a person and an object (for instance), as a person and himself appears (but isn’t necessarily) redundant.

                I believe your part about aggression is going about it the wrong way. One doesn’t need a robust defense of why one is entitled to the fruits of his own work, or his life! One needs a compelling theory to say the opposite. (To which, as you say, some group probably doesn’t have any moral authority over you)

                I know, almost everyone believes in self-ownership to some extent so jettisoning it probably isn’t a good idea., I’m just wondering how necessary or fundamental the idea is. Perhaps I’m simplifying things too much, (or making things more complex than they are or need be.)

            • guest says:

              … being here you are … raping and enslaving our client.

              Spoken like a true Obfuscator.

              I mean Socialist.

              (Progressfuscator-ive? Rebrander-ist?)

              At any rate, I’m sure you’ll wait until someone clearly expresses their intentions after having trespassed into your bedroom, before you get your gun.

              See: “The 21 Foot Rule”.

        • Richie says:

          No he’s not.

          No they don’t.

          • Philippe says:

            Yes, he’s talking about an imaginary society.

            • Matt M says:

              So are you. Neither of us can point to actual examples of market anarchy in a modern society.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Philippe,

              Your ideal society is also “imaginary”, and yet you continue to advocate we move towards it.

        • guest says:

          Of course you’re just talking about imagination land so you can make up anything you want.

          “Imaginationland” means it’s impossible for anyone to respect private property rights, correct?

    • guest says:

      Privatization of a state’s function’s isn’t the abolition of it.

      The function may or may not be legitimate, depending on whether or not it violates individual rights.

      The goal isn’t to abolish the function, per se.

      • Samson Corwell says:

        You’re talking to someone who doesn’t use rights language.

        • guest says:

          In your worldview, is there such a concept as “slavery”?

  14. John says:

    I think the issue is whether PDFs created and managed by insurance companies will be more, less, or equally likely to overstep their bounds (whatever those may be) than are the civil or military authorities currently invested with the police power. I think as several people have noted, there is no way to know for sure. There is no Ancapistan and probably never has been, and consequently one really can’t know how things would work there. I do think some are concerned that if the incentives driving insurance companies and private security firms in the current world are an indication, there may be significant problems with the proposed system of PDFs above and beyond what we have come to expect from their government counterparts in the US. I’ve mentioned some of my concerns in this regard. Beyond that, I think it’s very very difficult to say. On the one hand, I don’t think it’s by any means clear that the PDF concept would be superior to the current system, and I don’t understand why some are so certain it would surely work as well or better. On the other hand, the current system certainly has many serious flaws, which the comments here have often noted, and I can’t say I know for sure that PDFs would be worse. Giving anyone authority to do anything generally comes with problems, unfortunately.

Leave a Reply to Philippe

Cancel Reply