http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf
This is the article i am discussing, if you are unfamiliar with the ideas involved in an Anarchy, free-market system you should check it out first because i’m not going to get into the explanations for some of my ideas.
The argument for a free market anarchy system starts with, in this particular document, the problem with a forced monopoly. The arguments against it are limited in their validity. Calling the government, especially a democratic government, a forced monopoly, while technically correct, is not the whole picture. The government in a democracy is decided upon by the people. The question ‘Why does that one group have the power and no one else?’ is because we say so, simple as that. You can’t say they don’t have the right because they do have the right, we’ve collectively given that right to the government and they are answerable to us, we collectively have the final say, as it should be.
Is it the most efficient way to do things? No, of course not but why do we need the most efficient system? We waste some resources, yes, but hey that’s life, is anyone as efficient as they possibly could be? No. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to do things better and more efficiently but if we can’t get to 100% efficiency we shouldn’t really worry that much about it, especially not enough to just abolish the whole system.
Also there is competition. It comes from other governments, if someone doesn’t want to subscribe to the American system anymore they are free to leave and try another system. How is that a monopoly? The argument that it’s not necessarily the best working system i’ve already addressed. But if there is a better idea out there we can adopt it, or not, as we see fit. And if the rules the government makes are that outrageous we can simply collectively change them.
The next problem i have is the argument for private enforcement agencies. In the article the argument for them is that it is more expensive to subscribe to the enforcement agencies that will use violence to solve disputes. Which is likely to win in a dispute? An agency that will use force or an agency that will not? The answer, sadly, is the one that uses force will win against any that do not also use force. That is simply the human condition, fear of pain and death are powerful. So the argument that it is more expensive doesn’t apply since they either all will use force or only the wealthy will be able to afford the ones that do… that’s a quick road to oppression, i truly hope everyone can see that! What you want in an enforcement agency is that they get the job done, done quickly, and the end result is favorable to you. So what is likely to happen is that everyone has mercenaries backing them up. Eventually that leads to fights between agencies, viing for power.
i’ve addressed organized crime before but it is worth repeating. There are still laws in an Anarchist society, social contracts so to speak. There will still be people who want things like drugs and prostitution illegal. So since there will still be things that will be only available on a black market there will still be organized crime. But in Anarchy there is no central enemy of organized crime, instead its enemies are divided and as such decidedly weaker.
i still see it as likely, regardless of any educational achievements, that insurance companies will be able to merge with enforcement and other companies for efficiency sake. This is a dangerrous road as it leads to no separation of powers, which we should all recognize as bad.
Speaking of separation of powers i have one final argument against anarchy. i think it’s the strongest and i am surprised it hasn’t come up before. The problem is religions. We all know that religions are powerful organizations and as such they could easily offer insurance to their believers. Not only that but they could offer great rates, better than the competition, since they could ensure a certain moral character to their policy holders. Now do you think it is likely that it would stop there? I think history tells a different story. It would be entirely conceivable that religions, not insurance companies or enforcement agencies, would emerge as the new governmental replacements.
Would people have any trouble giving them more and more power? Not those that already subscribe to the belief that they are correct ro the one true faith, they would most likely argue that the organization should be a universally accepted truth and so more power given to it could only be a good thing. That’s the blanket statement of most religions, ‘we’re right, they’re wrong and therefore should be converted in order to save their immortal souls.’ People would believe they were doing the right thing when they destroyed another person’s life in the puruit of saving their soul. If only there were something in history we could learn from on this matter… If you haven’t read my essay on the separation of powers, my ideas are there.
Tags: Anarchy, business, change, democracy, economics, fascism, government, market, politics, revolution
September 1, 2009 at 5:16 am |
This post leaves me rather confused, because you seem to have not read the piece very carefully; Long specifically addresses each of your issues.
Pretty much all of your arguments rest on the validity of methodological collectivism, which is inherently irrational. The idea of “we” in a political sense is a falsehood. In any large collective there exist individuals who oppose that which is described as the “will” of the group; even though they may make up 49% of the collective, these individuals’ wills are being overridden, and the use of “we” is just an opiate to dull people to this injustice.
Those on the blunt end of the “final say” definitely don’t feel empowered. Do you believe that your individual rights are suddenly invalid if your view, property or person is on the “wrong” side of a majority decision? Were Jim Crow laws “bad” laws? How can a law be “bad” if the majority votes for it?
September 2, 2009 at 2:00 am |
I guess most of those are just my counters to his arguments. Most i would agree are subjective on either side. It seems to come down to an argument of what is likely to happen. I see that you didn’t touch on religion either, and i reread his essay just to make sure i didn’t miss it. I think religion is the most likely source of government like forces arising. And i think it is inevitable that some organization will rise to that position, just a matter of time. i think history pretty much tells us that, at least the history i learned, i guess it could have all been propaganda. Though the idea of ‘we’ in political sense i think exists, it is the reason revolutionary wars have been fought, the collective ‘we’ had had enough, and they had allowed things to get so bad that the only way to change them was to go to war. That’s obviously the extreme example but an example none the less.
As long as the dissenting voices are not stifled and are free to express their desires openly and argue about them i don’t see much problem and i think if they have truth on their side they will eventually emerge triumphant, assuming they don’t give up anyway. Also you said there would be laws in an anarchy system right, social contracts of some kind? So what happens to the people who don’t agree with those laws under anarchy? We can’t assume there would be a 100% approval rating for every law. The reasoning to abolish government because some people aren’t going to get their way is flawed since it seems there will always be some who are dissatisfied. But in an anarchy system who do those concerned citizens turn to? They can’t just make another law that opposes the one they don’t like or laws would mean nothing. Are they exempt from the monetary punishment if they break the laws they do not agree with? No, so the minority are oppressed by the majority because of where they live, just like in a system with a government. They can go elsewhere in either system.
i’m looking forward to your response.