[Rich]

You (not for the first time) confuse Libertarians - as defined by the forum description - with Anarchists. The Founding Fathers of the United States, for example, ....
were profoundly Libertarian (i.e. Classical Liberal, "Minarchist", Laissez-faire Capitalist) in their ideas and writings.

Yes that's why they included the fugitive slave clause. Other Libertarian delights form the founders were Americas first trans oceanic war and a health mandate for seamen.

The Declaration of Independence

wicked comedy : "all men are created equal." They really were the greatest comedians till Laurel and Hardy came along. Those boys certainly had a sense of humour!

and the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights are all profoundly Libertarian documents,

Oh dear Phred, you are aware the Lord of the Rings is not a historical work. Tolkien's Shire was the Angloshere's delusional self image created as we were incinerating city populations by the tens of thousand. The British and American Bills of rights were not certainly not about about individual rights but about the rights of collectives: Protestants in the former, the state bodies in the latter. The founders were fine with restricting free speech such as the banning of abolitionist literature and banning Blacks from owning weapons. Its not just that the founders cared not a hoot for the rights of Blacks, Indians, women, children, the poor etc, but they didn't give a fuck about the rights of individual slaver plutocrats. Numerous restrictions were put on slavery, what mattered were the collective interests of the slaver plutocrats not individual rights. Of course these small government Libertarians had no problem with taxing to subsides the Haiti slave owners as this was seen as being in the collective interest of the slaver plutocrats.

[Eran]

The founders clearly operated within the contemporary mindset with respect to minorities and women. However, within that mindset, they saw a small and restricted role for government.

We can call them libertarian in the same sense that we can call the Athenians "democratic".

[AFAIK]

Back on topic.

I think a libertarian society is likely to develop a passport system of sorts. People are likely to be concerned that strangers are potential criminals or troublemakers and a passport provided by an insurance company would assure people that this person has 1-been vetted and 2-has prescribed to a formal dispute resolution mechanism. I would expect road owners to require potential road users to gain a license from a reputable agency before access to the road is granted.

How likely is it that foreign governments would come to recognise these documents alongside those provided by the former state institutions?

[Eran]

On your first point, I completely agree. In fact, such system can provide outstanding flexibility in crime prevention, deterrence as well as a substantive individual control over one's "legal environment".

As I see it, your contract with your crime insurance company would be one of the most important in your life. It is akin, in some ways, to electing which government you are subject to, albeit with full competition and flexibility.

The contract would stipulate precisely which legal rules apply if and when you are accused of a crime (or any tort, including negligence). Your insurance company bridges any potential gap between "your" legal rules and those of the other party to the dispute.

Say your company's rules require trial by jury for any accusation of purposeful harm which might result in a restitution judgement of over $100,000. You pass through a territory in which such protection is limited to judgements of over $500,000. You are accused of causing serious bodily harm following a bar fight. You punched somebody who subsequently lost several months of work and suffered significant pain.

Without your insurance coverage, you would have been subject to the local rules, which, for the purpose of illustration, stipulate that a single arbitrator may rule on such cases. However, your insurance company now intervenes. While a single arbitrator may still be summoned by the victim, and might find you guilty, the sentence is paid by your insurance company. Following the terms of your agreement, the company subjects you to a trial, but one with a jury. The jury finds you innocent, and so the insurance company absorbs the entire fine (perhaps less a deductible). In a variation on this scenario, the jury does find you guilty, but awards a lower amount. The insurance company charges you that lower amount, absorbing the difference between the first sentence and your customised one.

Note what now happens. Other things being equal, people would prefer to be covered by a policy that stipulates relatively lenient treatment and high standard of proof for conviction. Such legal rules carry a cost in the form of higher probability of guilty parties being let off. Under the current government system, balancing the cost of freeing guilty criminals vs. the cost of finding innocent people guilty is balanced by the political and/or judicial intuition of legislators and judges.

In the new system, the cost of freeing guilty people is internalised into your insurance premium. You have personal control over the standard of proof you want to be subject to, provided only you are willing to pay its price! The market discovery mechanism can now be unleashed on identifying optimal solutions to this problem.


I can also envision a system whereby people's access rights are "coded". For example:
Black - unowned land or land without any entry control
Red - penal communities; land is owned, and expressly set aside for use by ex-criminals and others not able to get insurance coverage for any other category
Amber - low-cost neighbourhoods; allowing in people with relatively low-cost insurance (say low coverage ceilings), as well as people with prior convictions
Green - most developed lands, allowing most law-abiding, insurance-carrying people
Blue - controlled environments such as schools, high-end shopping districts and gated residential communities. Only people carrying particularly expensive policies, typically requiring high credit rating, very clean criminal record, etc., are allowed.

[Drlee]

Interesting role for government Eran.

Control the movement of people.

Define and control the insurance system

Etc.

You articulate a society in which money can buy rights. The lack of money denies rights. That is absurd.

Eran you insurance plan, while one of your more inventive trolls is patently unworkable. Further there is no logical path to it.

Further it reposes power in insurance companies or worse groups of them.

Further it is a solution in search of a problem. It proceeds from a noting that government is bad and we should create any solution, no matter how complicated and frankly ridiculous, just so we can replace a function that government does better and cheaper now. And if you imagine problems with the way government does manage this problem you can more easily posit modifications to the current system than to throw it out and start over.

As to your view of the founders. You are aware that among the very first things they did was to create a government paid health care system for some citizens?

[JohnRawls]

Uttered with about the same logic as the claim that separation of church and state would lead to the inquisition.

Ahem... Ahem... , i was talking about the past you know. Its not like there are no examples of this. Like a good commie would say to any libertarian/anarchist - 'Remember Kronstadt'.

[AFAIK]

DrLee, Jews may prefer this system to various governmental ones. No name just one group.

[Drlee]

DrLee, Jews may prefer this system to various governmental ones. No name just one group.

I am completely puzzled by your comment. Can you explain to me what you mean? I must be missing something.

[AFAIK]

As in Nazi Germany is more effective at imposing apartheid than a range of actors whose tendency is to compete against one another would be.

Liberalism may be the dominant ideology today but the state has been mobilised against specific groups on multiple occasions throughout history.

Today states have a lot of discretion over who they allow within their borders and what rights those people have to work, do business, etc.

The Roma and Rohingya are two groups that are currently stateless and without rights.

-------EDIT--------------
Eran's system allows for more flexibility, nuance and proactive engagement than a one-size-fits-all government scheme.
It works in a similar manner to travel insurance.

[Eran]

Interesting role for government Eran.

Control the movement of people.

Define and control the insurance system.

No government. Merely private owners exercising their right to determine who is and who isn't allowed on their property. Do you allow anybody to enter your house?

The insurance system is entirely private. The system I describe is but a standardization of a pattern of legitimate choices by property owners and operators as to whom to allow on their land.

You articulate a society in which money can buy rights. The lack of money denies rights. That is absurd.

Are you opposed to hotels? What is a hotel, if not an establishment in which money buys the right to use the facilities?
How about flights? Where money buys you the right to board a plane?

Money is routinely used to secure permission from other people to use their property. That's all.

Eran you insurance plan, while one of your more inventive trolls is patently unworkable. Further there is no logical path to it.

Further it reposes power in insurance companies or worse groups of them.

Further it is a solution in search of a problem. It proceeds from a noting that government is bad and we should create any solution, no matter how complicated and frankly ridiculous, just so we can replace a function that government does better and cheaper now. And if you imagine problems with the way government does manage this problem you can more easily posit modifications to the current system than to throw it out and start over.

I take it you disapprove. Fair enough.

Whether there is or isn't a need for such a system will depend on circumstances. It is a costly system, and would only be put in place if the need is there. For example, shopping malls today may have the right to exclude people, but, in practice, rarely do.

Most residential neighbourhoods allow all incomers. "Gated Communities" do not. Some apartment buildings have locked doors and intercoms. Others do not.

It is entirely plausible that levels of crime in society are low enough that nobody bothers with the system I described. That would be great.

As levels of crime rise, individuals, corporations and communities will start taking steps to protect themselves. One step available to them in a free society (but only in a limited way in a government-ruled one) is to exclude potential criminals from their property.

That exclusion can be done on an ad-hoc way (as when a private security guard or a bouncer decides whom to allow and whom not to). Over time, however, a more structured system can arise, whereby admittance will be based on proven reliability as a law-abiding citizen.

Today, many organisations and regulatory agencies require background checks before allowing people to work with vulnerable others such as children. My scheme is but an extension of that idea.

[Travesty]

Since Defense and a monopoly of force are the foremost raison d'etre of any state I have these questions for Libertarians who want to do away with the state.


- How will Libertarians defend their borders and how will borders be defined?

- What would a libertarian military look like and how will it be financed and by whom?

- If its Private security agencies then how would their loyalty be maintained if they are only driven by profit? Why cant their loyalty be bought by a powerful state like say China with more capital than a collection of communes?

- What about nuclear weapons? Who will be in control of that?

- Who will finance military R&D to remain competitive?

[AFAIK]

Interesting role for government Eran.

Control the movement of people.

Define and control the insurance system.

Many state require drivers to purchase insurance, why shouldn't someone deny uninsured persons access to their property?
Thailand is considering making travel insurance compulsory.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/busines ... 12477.html

[Eran]

- How will Libertarians defend their borders and how will borders be defined?

- What would a libertarian military look like and how will it be financed and by whom?

Borders are defined based on private property boundaries. How they are defended depends very much on the nature of the threat.

1. Many modern states do not bother defending their borders (Canada, Costa Rica, Belgium)
2. Many modern states tried but failed to defend their borders (Europe during WW II)
3. In some cases, an active militia of armed citizens, loosely organised, may be enough (Switzerland)
4. High-value installations will likely be defended by private armed forces, possibly coordinated by insurance companies with direct stake at the defence of multiple such installations, creating economies of scale.

- If its Private security agencies then how would their loyalty be maintained if they are only driven by profit? Why cant their loyalty be bought by a powerful state like say China with more capital than a collection of communes?

We will probably see a mixed set of solutions. On the one extreme you have unpaid militia, dedicating to defending their homes and neighbours. They aren't paid, and their motivation is entirely "patriotic" (though their allegiance may be somewhat local).

At the other hand you do have mercenaries, but historically, those have rarely switched sides that easily. They will probably be deployed primarily to defend high-value point-targets like industrial installations, bank vaults or data centres. Because of the high value they defend, they will be highly professional and well-compensated. Buying them won't be easy.

Compare, for example, to the suggestion that Goldman Sacks could take over a rival bank by "buying off" their entire work-force. You can pouch a few individuals, but that's about all.

- What about nuclear weapons? Who will be in control of that?

I'm not sure. Most countries, keep in mind, do not have nuclear weapons even today, yet they manage well. Nuclear weapons are almost exclusively used by government to blackmail or deter each other. They aren't really effective against an anarchy. There is no central organisation to threaten into submission, and destroying a peaceful neighbouring territory is futile.

- Who will finance military R&D to remain competitive?

Private armies will compete, amongst other things, on their technological edge.

[Travesty]

Borders are defined based on private property boundaries. How they are defended depends very much on the nature of the threat.

So there will not be a United States on a world map. Boundaries based on private property isn't really a boundary in the traditional sense. A large city will then have a million different boundaries. There will in essence be a republic of Joe and Sally everywhere. So corporations and companies who own more capital will have a larger border (which will be all over the place) and will be defended by their own private security agency.

1. Many modern states do not bother defending their borders (Canada, Costa Rica, Belgium)
2. Many modern states tried but failed to defend their borders (Europe during WW II)
3. In some cases, an active militia of armed citizens, loosely organised, may be enough (Switzerland)

Well yes but certain geopolitical realities dictate a countries defense and foreign policy. Canada and Costa Rica are under the suzerainty of the United States they cannot defend their border as they do not have the capacity to do so and they do not need to do so as they already are allied and share their only border with the United States in the case of Canada. Costa Rica's defense is the responsibility of the US. Remove the US as a state and the equation changes for those two completely.

And Switzerland does have an Army. Its drafted. But it does have permanent professional element and an air force. Its not a militia.

We will probably see a mixed set of solutions. On the one extreme you have unpaid militia, dedicating to defending their homes and neighbours. They aren't paid, and their motivation is entirely "patriotic" (though their allegiance may be somewhat local).

What authority will regulate disputes among private entities, communes and Individuals? How will inter-state or erhmm...inter boundary commerce be regulated and how will contracts be enforced among countless private entities? What will prevent Neo-Nazi commune A from attacking oil refinery of corporation B? I'm assuming that local communes will be governed by their own local laws which will be different all over the place. Will there be a higher legal authority over local laws that everybody will work with? And how will that higher legal authority enforce their laws?

I'm not sure. Most countries, keep in mind, do not have nuclear weapons even today, yet they manage well. Nuclear weapons are almost exclusively used by government to blackmail or deter each other. They aren't really effective against an anarchy. There is no central organisation to threaten into submission, and destroying a peaceful neighbouring territory is futile.

Yes but the technology for WMD's exists and its fairly easy to reproduce WMD's. Not just nuclear, but chemical and biological. In a hypothetical anarchy there is nothing stopping a powerful corporations and security agencies from developing them to maintain a competitive edge. It gets back to that legal authority.

[Eran]

So there will not be a United States on a world map. Boundaries based on private property isn't really a boundary in the traditional sense. A large city will then have a million different boundaries. There will in essence be a republic of Joe and Sally everywhere. So corporations and companies who own more capital will have a larger border (which will be all over the place) and will be defended by their own private security agency.

Basically, yes. Of course most borders wouldn't have to be defended. Inter-European borders today, for example, aren't defended, and neither is the border between the US and Canada.

Corporations may have their own private security personnel or, more likely, will contract with the same security agencies that will also protect private citizens (directly or through insurance companies).

Costa Rica's defense is the responsibility of the US. Remove the US as a state and the equation changes for those two completely.

Which is precisely my point - the nature of defence is very much a function of circumstances. European borders today aren't defended. An anarchy may or may not have to be defended.

What authority will regulate disputes among private entities, communes and Individuals?

Disputes will be resolved through appeal to credible, acceptable arbitration agencies. For a libertarian society to become a pure anarchy, the norm of peaceful resolution of disputes through appeal to arbitration would have to be firmly entrenched, just as the norm of obedience to election results and Supreme Court decisions is today (in the US) firmly entrenched. If you doubt that this is a norm, rather than a matter of written Constitution, just observe events in Egypt.

How will inter-state or erhmm...inter boundary commerce be regulated and how will contracts be enforced among countless private entities?

Commerce will not be centrally regulated. Rather, individuals and groups (e.g. corporations) are free to trade and contract with any others. The only limitation is that nobody may violate the (property) rights of others. Those whose rights are violated may appeal to arbitrators, directly or through their protection contracts with insurance companies.

Contract enforcement will likely be built-in to the contract itself, with the identity of the arbitration firm (or procedures for choosing one) being explicitly stipulated, just as the issue of applicable law is explicitly specified, as a matter of routine, in cross-border contracts today.

What will prevent Neo-Nazi commune A from attacking oil refinery of corporation B?

If they tried, private security forces will first repel the attack, and subsequently the insurance company protecting the refinery will initiate legal action against the commune. If necessary, forces of additional protection agencies will be contracted to help in the defence until, as necessary, the entire force of society will be arrayed against the commune.

I'm assuming that local communes will be governed by their own local laws which will be different all over the place. Will there be a higher legal authority over local laws that everybody will work with? And how will that higher legal authority enforce their laws?

Local variation in law would be possible, but only within the broad constraints of the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). Similar to how US states can have certain leeway in setting up local laws, but are constrained by the US Constitution.

There isn't going to be a single, monopoly legal authority, but rather a group of highly-regarded arbitration firms with sterling reputations whose opinions would be very broadly respected.

In a hypothetical anarchy there is nothing stopping a powerful corporations and security agencies from developing them to maintain a competitive edge. It gets back to that legal authority.

Chemical and biological weapons, at least, are easy to develop today. Dozens of governments possess them now. And while the cost of engaging in mass killing is much lower for governments than it is for private corporations, use of WMDs is fairly rare. There would be absolutely no "competitive edge" associated with the use of WMDs. Any CEO stupid enough to do so will find himself under immediate personal attack, his employees deserting him, his bank accounts frozen, and his share-holders voting to oust him.

Imagine a US President who orders the military forces of the US to perform a military coup against Congress. That's how unlikely the scenario you paint is.

[Nunt]

How will inter-state or erhmm...inter boundary commerce be regulated

By asking the question like that, you are already giving one possible answer. You ask about how commerce can ever happen without a single and ultimate monopoly overseeing that commerce. Yet at the same time you refer to current inter-state or international trade. Well, the fact that international trade exists today gives an answer to your question. Because on the international sphere, there is no ultimate monopoly. There is anarchy, and still trade happens in an orderly fashion between countries that have vastly different legal systems.

[Travesty]

Ok guys I understand what you are saying and thanks for answering. Perhaps this could even work but what you are describing is in the end theoretical. I think I've settled on the notion that predicting what could occur in a hypothetical anarchy is futile. There are just too many variables, too many people with too much independence to predict what could happen as opposed to a centralized government with a specific geographic location, a political ideology and economic policy.

For a libertarian society to become a pure anarchy, the norm of peaceful resolution of disputes through appeal to arbitration would have to be firmly entrenched

Local variation in law would be possible, but only within the broad constraints of the Non Aggression Principle (NAP)

These create a new set of issues like implementation. The anarchy you are describing seems to be a highly educated and civilized society where common norms and principles would be accepted if not by all then by most of the population. Historically anarchies have usually occurred against the general wishes of the population though, as a result of war and general collapse of order and government. Anarchies like that lead to chaos and violence and people descend into the Hobbesian natural state. I also doubt that most countries would allow something like independent anarchist communes to start popping up on their territory, so this will probably have to be implemented by a broad consensus among the general population in a given country.

This is again hypothetical.

Do you think this can be implemented now? Or when society becomes more educated and enlightened than it is now? And can this be implemented only in highly developed societies and not developing societies?

[Eran]

The anarchy you are describing seems to be a highly educated and civilized society where common norms and principles would be accepted if not by all then by most of the population.

No more so than is today's constitutional democracy. Today's system also relies on certain common norms and principles being virtually universally accepted. The anarchy I am describing merely substitutes those norms for other - more natural and intuitive ones.

I also doubt that most countries would allow something like independent anarchist communes to start popping up on their territory, so this will probably have to be implemented by a broad consensus among the general population in a given country.

As a matter of political reality, you are probably right. There are various attempts around this obstacle, including the seasteading enterprise and efforts to form "free cities" within small territorial enclaves surrendered by sovereign states.

Do you think this can be implemented now? Or when society becomes more educated and enlightened than it is now? And can this be implemented only in highly developed societies and not developing societies?

No, I don't think any modern society is ready for a libertarian anarchy. But not because they aren't sufficiently educated or enlightened. Rather, the reason is that current statist doctrines are too firmly entrenched. The road to a libertarian anarchy is going to be long. It may pass through small, extra-territorial enclaves forming examples to be imitated by more conventional societies. Or through the gradual libertarianization of existing societies.

While I firmly believe that a libertarian anarchy is a practical possibility, I am not optimistic about its coming about in the foreseeable future.

[Someone5]

Uttered with about the same logic as the claim that separation of church and state would lead to the inquisition.

How so? Getting the main impediment to socialism (the capitalist state) out of the way would be a huge help. Especially since anything like organized capitalist resistance would collapse very quickly under lolbertarianism--corporations could never survive the collapse of the state.

[Eran]

I was responding to your statement that "OTOH, the aftermath of a libertarian revolution would be amazingly fertile ground for socialists to launch a counter-revolution."

Before separation of church and state, the critical role of government in imposing religious uniformity was broadly accepted. Contrary to all concerns, such separation proved most conducive to organised religion.

Today, separation of economy and state is broadly resisted because of the perceived critical role of government in regulating markets. Once the separation is tried, however, the success of the resulting system will make people as likely to want to bring government back as Americans are likely to want to re-introduce state religion. That is to say, a few radicals may still advocate such retrogression, just as some radicals call for reintroduction of Soviet-style central planning.