[Sceptic]

I have still not seen a single argument from you as to why you think decentralised enforcement of property rights couldn't work.

It's so simple: the absence of cohesiveness in a world of polycentric ethical codes. The State is one law, one nation whereas in your ancap society, arbitrators have to resolve disputes between themselves. In the end, wealth and power will win. The notion of 'can it work' comes from a futile perspective because it's very difficult to define 'work' so instead Statists like myself will simply resort to a descriptive measure of how disputes are resolved in practice: a monopoly on law. It's the only way, even in your beloved free market justice, you ancaps have the audacity to speak about 'mainstream insurance policy', in other words, corporatocracy.

[Nunt]

The State is one law, one nation

Its not. There are many states and many laws.

[Rothbardian]

The point isn't to draw a perfect analogy between international and domestic relations.

The point, rather, is to show through the international arena example that simplistic assertions regarding the necessity of a single, centralised power to guarantee peace should be avoided or taken with caution.

If you want to make a more nuanced argument for the necessity of a central force-bearer, make sure that your argument couldn't just as easily be used to "prove" that wars should be a regular occurrence. They aren't.

There will always be differences in specifics but it is pretty fatal to the idea that without a government to enforce contracts commerce breaks down.

[Eran]

It's so simple: the absence of cohesiveness in a world of polycentric ethical codes.
The State is one law, one nation whereas in your ancap society, arbitrators have to resolve disputes between themselves. In the end, wealth and power will win.

For the state to work, it isn't enough for government to have more physical force than anybody else. Without being perceived as legitimate, even very strong governments fail and deteriorate into either civil war or military occupation.

That perception of legitimacy is an instance of cohesiveness that is possible even when people's ethical codes are otherwise highly divergent.

Thus a leftist anti-gun, pro-choice pro-drugs hippy can co-exist with a right-wing pro-gun, pro-life anti-drug red-neck, not because of the superior force of the Federal government, but because, more fundamentally, they both do agree on something.

They agree that the Constitution is ultimately the only provider of legitimate use of force within American society. They can thus both agree on which laws bind them, and who is authorised to enact and interpret those laws.

So while their ultimate ethical codes are "polycentric", they have managed to agree on a base structure for resolving disputes. It is this common understanding, rather than the existence of a single ultimate arbitrator, that ensures peaceful co-existence.

In an anarchic society, we do away with having a single ultimate arbitrator, but not with the need for, or availability of, a common, very widely accepted mechanism for resolving disputes. As long as such a mechanism exist and is broadly accepted, a peaceful, stable and prosperous society can exist without the need for that single arbitrator.

[Sceptic]

Its not. There are many states and many laws.

I'm talking about on a geographical basis. And even internationally, there is still international law, Nato, UN, the coalition of the willing, etc.

[Rothbardian]

Governments, by far the greatest killers and most egregious destroyers of property are essential to creating peace. You'd have to chug a LOT of koolaid to take that seriously.

[Sceptic]

You'd have to chug a LOT of koolaid to take that seriously.

And yet, most people do.

[Rothbardian]

And yet, most people do.

Indeed. If you feel vindicated by that, you shouldn't.

[Baff]

[]The State is one law, one nation[/]
Its not. There are many states and many laws.

My state has 4 nations in it.
There are some tiny differences in the laws too. But none worth mentioning. Fundamentally it's a unified legal structure.

[Baff]

There will always be differences in specifics but it is pretty fatal to the idea that without a government to enforce contracts commerce breaks down.

My example for this would be Hong Kong.

Without a government the place prospered like crazy.
Free trade in action.




Then a govt noticed and decided.... "I want to own that".

The people of Hong Kong were powerless to prevent that.
The place turned to shit. All their trade shipping got pirated.


However, as luck would have it, two governments had both seen that undefended wealth and were both willing to fight for it.
The Brits won and Hong Kong continued to prosper.
Later on this was reversed and the Chinese govt took over and Hong Kong is still very profitable.

Only one thing has changed for them, no one has been pirating all their ships.
They have lived in peace and security ever since they got taken over.

And the point of my story is this...
You need to be a certain size in order to defend yourself. If you are not, you will pay tribute to those who can defend you.
And that is the most freedom you can realistically hope for without a central government of your own, and a big arsed one at that.

[Eran]

That depends on your neighbourhood.

Europe is full of tiny, independent nations which have no chance of defending themselves, yet thrive independently.

[Rothbardian]

My example for this would be Hong Kong.

Without a government the place prospered like crazy.
Free trade in action.




Then a govt noticed and decided.... "I want to own that".

The people of Hong Kong were powerless to prevent that.
The place turned to shit. All their trade shipping got pirated.


However, as luck would have it, two governments had both seen that undefended wealth and were both willing to fight for it.
The Brits won and Hong Kong continued to prosper.
Later on this was reversed and the Chinese govt took over and Hong Kong is still very profitable.

Only one thing has changed for them, no one has been pirating all their ships.
They have lived in peace and security ever since they got taken over.

And the point of my story is this...
You need to be a certain size in order to defend yourself. If you are not, you will pay tribute to those who can defend you.
And that is the most freedom you can realistically hope for without a central government of your own, and a big arsed one at that.

The argument that governments are necessary for enforcement of contracts stems from the Hobbesian argument that without an overseer people will devolve into unthinking irrational beasts. What you describe is more to the importance of national defense than the enforcement of contracts. China never went into an anarchic system, it always had a government. It may have been a laissez faire government but it was still a government. As long as people are trained to accept the lie of statism, this is will be the result. It is proof that minarchism doesn't work. Nothing you do with a government will ever work as intended.

That is why the smallest governments always become the largest empires.

[Baff]

That depends on your neighbourhood.

Europe is full of tiny, independent nations which have no chance of defending themselves, yet thrive independently.

Most of Europes national borders have come into being precisely because they are defenceable.

In many cases you are right however and they still have no chance of defending themselves which is why so few of them thrive independantly (Switzerland only). The others all form interdependant defence pacts and always have. As often as they have been nationally independant they have been colonised or annexed or willfully joined a poltical union/Empire.


@Rothardbardian, the largest empires all had the largest govts.
Rome had a govt office in very town in the empire.
So did the Soviets.
So did the British.

I can think of no empire at all with a small govt.
The exportation of the British governmental system worldwide resulted in it becoming the largest Empire in human history.
The chances are you live in a country which still uses it.

China does not strike me as a place of small govt either. But I've never been so I could be wrong.


My argument that a "govt " is required to enforce laws is that unless there is one primarch, the resolution of disputes has a much greater potential for conflict. For no resolution being enforceable.
Having two smaller masters vying for control over me is not superior to having one larger master vying for control over me. It's twice as bad.

[Eran]

Having defensible borders doesn't explain why Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco or even Belgium, Holland or Denmark are independent.

Setting aside history, if the citizens of one of those countries decided to dismantle their government and become an anarchy, do you seriously think that they will suddenly be invaded by Germany or France?

How about your random Caribbean island nation? Is it the Bahaman armed forces that deter the US from taking it over?

How about Costa Rica which survived without armed forces since 1948?

The world today is very different from that of hundreds of years ago. International norms are such that armed invasions require serious and plausible justification.

[Baff]

I've got news for you, they always did.

Having defensible borders doesn't explain why Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco or even Belgium, Holland or Denmark are independent..

They are only independant in as much as we made them so and guarentee their security.
Otherwise they would all be examples of Nazi regimes.


I can think of carribean islands that have been unable to stop the USA from taking them over.
A lot of them did this by allying with France or Spain or Britain or even the USSR.

But the US took Grenada off us. So I guess most of those countries now look to the US to be their hegemon.
Costa Rica is so small having an army is likely pointless. Anyone who wants the place can take it. And many have.


Don't forget that if I pay you tribute, you won't invade me at all. My being unable to defend myself doesn't mean you even need to "invade"
I can do as you tell me to quite without it.
And if I pay you enough tribute you might invade my enemies on my behalf!

Setting aside history, if the citizens of one of those countries decided to dismantle their government and become an anarchy, do you seriously think that they will suddenly be invaded by Germany or France?.

I would expect them to be invaded by Britain and France in those circumstances.
That's what has traditionally occoured. I'd hesitate to include Germany due to their understandable unwillingness to deploy abroad. But when anarchy took over in Yugoslavia, Jerry was there. He still is.

Do you seriously think so many vested interests are all just going to sit by and let you steal and smash everything?
An anarchy in a neighbouring country is after all one of the more typical scenarios that has led to an invasion.

The age old cliche of Somalia is coming to mind. Almost a perma invasion that place.

[Rothbardian]

I said the smallest governments BECOME the largest empires. Obviously a large empire requires a large government.

Rome's government started smaller than ours. Their only purpose was to organise a defense for the growing merchant class that was thriving on its own. Its the same story over and over through history.