17
Aug
2012
The Market for Security (Mises 2012)
This is one of the talks I gave in Auburn in late July. I run through an economic case for complete privatization of judicial, police, and military services.
This is one of the talks I gave in Auburn in late July. I run through an economic case for complete privatization of judicial, police, and military services.
Nice suit!
I have a question.
Conceptionally, there is a difference between a contractual right, which is relative in that it only binds the parties to the contract but is irrelevant to third parties, and a property right, which is an absolute right that works against everybody. So if everything is voluntary it is difficult for me to imagine a property right in that sense unless everyone agreed to respect the right.
But what if the theft never acknowledged the existence of property rights in the first place. Wouldn’t it be strange to say we have privatized laws but to enforce them on people who didn’t subscribe?
And if your answer is that only people who subscribe are allowed to enter the community, again I don’t see how you can do that without enforcing the property right to your land on someone who doesn’t recognize your aledged property right.
The problem is that voluntarism seems incompatible with the concept of absolute rights.
And there is a second question (bye the way I appologize if these things have been answered somewhere else) .
It seems that you really have to trust your fellows to be very critical-minded and rational – a characteristic that I find hard to see in most of them.
At least my personal impression here in Europe is that people don’t need much evidence to be convinced of an allegation as long as some newspaper depicts the person in the right way. In other words, if you think of other people in such a good way – meaning that they will be very concerned with unjustified allegations and correct procedures and everything, why do libertarians complain about mob rule.
those are really good questions and i’ll let bob answer them, but i’d just say that most of the problems that you are depicting are present in any system, not just in a libertarian type system. basically, if a majority of people are ‘good’ in a society, then things will generally work pretty good, but if most people are ‘bad’, then any system will fail.
Yes, that’s certainly the case. The question is what mechanisms are likely to offset or utilize the ‘badness’ in people.
Anyway, these are honest questions that I find hard to figure out by myself.
yeah, thats true. I think most people who approach morality from a deontological view, like myself, won’t change their views based on these objections, lol, as we believe that to achieve happiness and a pleasant outcome we have to work within the rules of morality, not structure the rules of morality to achieve those aims. As stephen kinsella says, it’s possible to be a pessimistic anarcho-capitalist, holding the non aggression principle, but at the same time believing that it will result in chaos and corruption in the earth.
Because there is a lack of chaos and corruption today.
Well, yes. You can say that in response to the second questions. Note, however, that we are not arguing the case whether anarchism is morally right or wrong but the question how it would work out in practice.
The first question is different, though. As far as I understand, anarcho-capitalists believe in absolute inviolable property rights. At the same time, it seems that there are no absolute rights if you have to base everything on voluntary quasi-contractual relationships. So this isn’t a practical objection, it is a questions on what the moral view that you hold exactly is.
Did you end up having a question and answer session? If so, is there a video of it?
No video.
How very Bilderberg-esque of you guys.
I realize you’re making a joke, but I got gonged. There was a speaker after me. So I talked to kids in the hallway.
Speaking of question time, how about a mic for the questioners?
I’ll probably listen to this even though I’ve listened to your previous one two or three times. Is there anything new?
Yes, his elaboration on the theory of private law is more robust.
Also, there’s a offhand joke about David Gordon.
And Paul Krugman.
Krugman *is* a joke.
I will still be sending people the first one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw
(How does it only have 8300 views?)