Thursday, April 15, 2010

Law and order (and environmentalism!) in market anarchism

Francis Tandy's Voluntary Socialism, a left-wing market anarchist book from the late 19th century, has an excellent chapter on how law and order would work. (Rothbard's Society Without a State is another must-read.)

Excerpt:

“But who will perform the legislative function when the State is abolished?” is another frequent question. “You would surely not entrust that to Pinkerton or his fellows!” Most assuredly not. When a person subscribes to a protective association, a clause might well be inserted in the contract by which the subscriber agrees to serve as a juror whenever he is called upon to do so. When a prisoner is to be tried, a juror will then be selected by lot from among all the subscribers of the association. This jury will then judge the facts, and if they unanimously find the prisoner guilty, they will determine what punishment he shall receive. Strange as such a proposition may seem, it is by no means new. The original jury in ancient times was a means employed by the people to guard themselves against the tyranny of the State. The laws were enacted by the ruling powers, but when they were transgressed, the accused was tried “by his neighbors,” who rendered a verdict, not upon the facts alone, but also upon the law, and decided the penalty in case of conviction. They might find that the facts proved the prisoner guilty of the charges preferred, but that the law was tyrannical, and therefore he was justified in violating it.

A common question is how the environment could be protected in a market anarchist society. There's your answer: civilian juries will likely rule against companies contributing to pollution and environmental problems.

14 comments:

  1. Well, we definitely need to restore jury nullification as a first step to curtailing the encroachments of the state.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's your answer: civilian juries will likely rule against companies contributing to pollution and environmental problems.

    In a country that believe global warming is the biggest environmental issue... you trust that civilian juries will make a good judgment? I don't think most people are aware of [legitimate] environmental problems until it's far too late to do anything for the current victims.

    I like the idea of juries deciding whether a law is justly broken (I definitely see it working with drugs), but I fail to see how this could ever work in an anarchy. How do privatized protectorates enforce anything without resorting to the wretched force which makes government so unappealing in the first place? What recourse do I have if I am wronged by people in competing protectorates? If my neighbor didn't buy fire protection, does my house potentially suffer fire damage because it will simply burn out of control?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great questions, Ginx! I'll do my best to answer them (if I can convert you eventually I'll be a happy camper :)

    you trust that civilian juries will make a good judgment? I don't think most people are aware of [legitimate] environmental problems until it's far too late to do anything for the current victims.

    My answer is two-fold:

    1) If people are too dumb or slow to act on environmental problems (and I'm not denying this may be the case), then we're just as screwed under a statist system because they won't vote for pro-environment politicians/measures.

    2) The global warming (or whatever enviro-problem it is) deniers aren’t going to be able to sway even the dumbest jury members if someone else there to debunk their arguments and present the opposite case.
    How do privatized protectorates enforce anything without resorting to the wretched force which makes government so unappealing in the first place?

    They will have to use force in some cases but it will only be *retaliatory* force. Force is justified to bring a murderer to justice, for instance. But these private defense agencies will not be allowed to *initiate* force against a peaceful person the way that governments do.

    What recourse do I have if I am wronged by people in competing protectorates?

    You go to your own PDA which then contacts the PDA with the person you harmed. Both PDAs agree on a third private court to review the case, if necessary.

    If my neighbor didn't buy fire protection, does my house potentially suffer fire damage because it will simply burn out of control?

    If it’s important to you, you can choose to live in a covenant that requires everyone to have fire protection, or to not leave sofas on their lawn, or not paint their house purple, or whatever makes your own home value shrink.

    FTR I concede that this is all highly theoretical. I concede it might just be a big fantasy. But it’s fun to think about! Might just be that I like brain games.

    Oh yeah, and smash teh state!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. But these private defense agencies will not be allowed to *initiate* force against a peaceful person the way that governments do.

    So... is this accompanied by some sort of pacifist human breeding program, or am I to believe private companies don't hire people who abuse power?

    Suppose I live someplace and all my neighbors decide to form a covenant, am I forced to to do so as well?

    For me, most issues come down to one question: who regulates the regulators? The only sensible solution is to close the loop by having those at the top selected by those at the bottom. What am I suggesting? A complete inversion of the original constitutional standards for voting: allow only the homeless to vote.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sure, companies will hire people who abuse power, but so does the government--on a far more horrifying scale. It's the entire point of government!

    As for covenants, you'd have to accept the conditions of one before buying. But it's in everyone's self-interest to keep their home value high, so I doubt it would be hard to come to an agreement in such a situation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it censorship if we show this spammer the door?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is it censorship if we show this spammer the door?

    Of course it is, Cork (at least according to Ginxism). Forget the fact that Mr. Research Papers ignored the "spam will be rejected" warning and posted his off topic spam anyway, we'd be violating our libertarian ideology if we deleted it. And horrors to the thought of even a momentary episode of the dreaded Stalinist "comment moderation". Moderation my ass! It's censorship!!!

    As I understand Ginxist ideology, however, deleting spam is okay and does not count as censorship, but only as long as you're Ginx. As the founder of Ginxism, he is exempt from strict adherence to its doctrines.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deleting a comment that is spam is censorship, though you'll notice I leave any spam on my site if another comment refers to it (as I imagine you do). I personally would never implement comment moderation simply because I find it noticeably slows down the whole experience.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I personally would never implement comment moderation simply because I find it noticeably slows down the whole experience.

    I agree it makes back and forth between commenters difficult if not impossible, and I don't like using moderation. But depending on the situation (if Anything But Theist became hugely popular-something I'm not claiming for Skeptical Eye, by the way- and you were deluged with numerous spammers and trolls who were unrelenting in their harassment (as John Loftus has claimed happens at Debunking Christianity, where he currently IS moderating comments) you might just possibly change your tune.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Deleting a comment that is spam is censorship

    No, it is not.

    ReplyDelete
  11. though you'll notice I leave any spam on my site if another comment refers to it (as I imagine you do)

    Depends. Research Papers may still end up in the trash can.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ginx, so John W. Loftus has no balls?

    From the post you linked to:

    Grow a pair of fucking balls/ovaries and realize that if an idea you disagree with is displayed under your post for a few hours or even days before you get around to deleting it, the world will not end. There's nothing so dissatisfying as leaving a comment on someone's blog and then seeing the "Your Comment Can Be Viewed Upon Approval." MOTHER FUCKER!

    ReplyDelete
  13. if Anything But Theist became hugely popular

    LOL *wipes tear* Oh that is a good one. I think I'm safe from this ever happening.

    Deleting spam is censorship, I just find it to be an "acceptable" form which I myself practice. Maybe I should stop doing it entirely, I dunno. To be honest, I would leave up every one of DM's comments without hesitation if they weren't so obnoxiously spaced.

    I'm unaware of the status of John Loftus' balls.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am greatful for this exchange of comments, as it has helped me formulate when regulation is justified:

    Regulation is justified when the disruption it causes is less than the disruption it prevents.

    If comment moderation adds to the free exchange of ideas by eliminating the confusion and distraction of trolls, perhaps it's okay. I think there would have to be a lot of trolling for this to be the case.

    ReplyDelete

If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails