[Writ_Large]

Alright, so as far as I can tell, there are two main strains of anarcho-capitalist thought. On the one hand, followers of Murray Rothbard advocate private enforcement of a universal (libertarian) legal code, while on the other hand, followers of David Friedman advocate private law formation, arguing that this will lead to libertarian laws anyway. Where do resident ancaps fall on this issue? Is private law possible?

I'm not taking a position yet, this is an issue I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

[Daktoria]

Don't forget about minarchism or polycentric law either.

[Writ_Large]

I didn't forget about minarchism, any more than I forgot about communism. The question was directed at anarcho-capitalists.

As for polycentric law, how is it different from private law?

[Fraqtive42]

From what I can tell, this issue seems to exist largely on the deontological v.s. consequentialist divide. Rothbard bases his deontological arguments on praxeological presuppositions (Discourse Ethics), whilst Friedman is largely utilitarian in principle. I'm guessing that you will largely agree with whichever libertarian shares your ethical approach; i.e., do you accept Argumentation Ethics or do you favor a more utilitarian approach?

[Writ_Large]

I lean deontological, but my ethical beliefs are still forming. I don't think the private law debate exists on that same divide as clearly anymore, either. For instance, Robert Murphy adheres to Rothbard's natural-rights approach (argumentation ethics are Hoppe's contribution), yet he supports private law. Similarly, I've heard consequentialists defend the Rothbardian legal code.

[Eran]

Rothbard and Friedman are answering two different questions, which is why they are getting two different answers.

Rothbard is answering the question - what should the ideal society be like in terms of law and enforcement of justice.

Friedman asks - allowed to evolve naturally, what would law look like in a free society?

Friedman's answers are lacking in that he doesn't consider the pre-requisite political philosophy required within a society for its anarchy to remain stable. Answering that question would severely limit the range of laws that are likely to emerge in his "free market".

I also think Friedman over-estimates people's tendency for rational self-interest, and under-estimates the significance of people's sentiments regarding how society "should" be run, and their willingness to fight for their principles.


I would encourage you not to think in terms of an "either/or" choice between utilitarian and principled (deontological) arguments. Think of them as mutually-supporting.


In practice, an anarcho-capitalist society won't be established until the principle that Rothbardian property ownership is the source of legitimacy is firmly established. Without that principle, alternative sources of legitimacy would inevitably allow the corruption and exploitation associated with central government. With it in place, it will be difficult to see wide deviations from Rothbardian principles.

There are some points over which I would expect a realistic anarcho-capitalist society deviate from absolute Rothbardian orthodoxy. For example, Rothbard cannot produce an argument against unlimited cruelty towards animals and permanently-mentally-disabled humans. A realistic society would probably impose some such limits.


Finally, "polycentric law" is just a palatable alternative term for anarchy.

[Rothbardian]

Is private law possible?

Many people are not aware of this, but laws pre-date statism. The first laws were, as you put it, polycentric. When people had disputes, they would find a third party they could both agree on to resolve disputes. People that were good at this kind of mediation became what we would call judges today. The decisions reached by these people would spread and laws emerged naturally. It was entirely organic rather than having a select few in place to simply rule by decree the way it has been done since.

There have also been cases of laws, in the common law sense, springing up naturally without a government. For example, in medieval England most peasants did not have access to the King's courts nor the Church's, so they had to manage themselves. There was also the Western Territories in the United States, which existed in true anarchy until the arm of the Federal Government managed to reach that far. This included systems of private law.

I am not entirely familiar with the specifics of how it worked, but anarchist Ireland had a system of voluntary law as well. It was, I believe, somewhat communist, but it was voluntary.

What it comes down to is, people like order. To some extent, they need order. That is why the chaos that comes to mind when someone says the word 'anarchy' is so terrifying to people. What people forget, however, is that you do not have to force people to do what comes naturally to them, or to pursue their own interests. People want order, so you can count on them to pursue order. You do not have to impose it upon them.