“Scott Alexander” reviews David Friedman’s classic, The Machinery of Freedom.
My overall conclusion is that I am delighted by this fascinating and elegant system and would very much like to see it tried somewhere very far away from me.
I might contend that a version anarcho-capitalism is being tried very close to us, in fact right here on the Internet. The Internet’s legal apparatus might be said to be its communication and software protocols. Those emerge in various ways, but not through legislation backed by force.
One might counter that much of what we do on the Internet rests on a layer of commercial practices, and those in turn rest on a layer of government enforcement. This line of reasoning might go: if you took away government, then Google could not enforce its advertising contracts, and then Google would not have revenue, and then we would not have Google.
But I think the argument that we should be afraid of anarcho-capitalism because we lack experience with such a system might not be trumps.
Right. It is a poor argument that it wouldn’t work, because we haven’t seen it. By that standard, no new products or services would ever be tried.
It would be nice if there were space “nearby” where people could experiment with private law. This seems like the biggest impediment… government may be lax in protecting the taxi cartel, hotel cartel, package delivery monopoly, etc., but it will never be so lax in allowing competition to develop for law and police services.
Have you ever had to use police services? We’re you impressed? Impressed relative to cost?
I bet we are already somewhere over 50% anarcho-capitalist, and that is if you don’t live in Ferguson. You buy locks, car alarms, pepper spray, etc. In my experience they have been extremely lax in performing the service and what they prevent private provision of is pretty small. Making me scared to carry proper self defense tools is one example.
Contracts are private law, to some percentage. If by being lax in enforcement of these in order to undermine private law is what you mean by them not being lax in protecting their monopoly I’m definitely with you. Monopolize the enforcement of civil regulation, don’t do it, claim more power to fight the resulting chaos.
Technologies like Ethereum may be helping up learn more about how systems which don’t rely on government work, or don’t work.
But just like Bitcoin, two distinct ‘adverse selection’ effects regarding voluntary participants in such a system make it hard to draw ceteris paribus conclusions. And it kind of goes against the whole ethos to compulsory assign people by random lottery and prohibit either entry or exit so that better conclusions can be drawn.
So, for example, if the powers that be set up some kind of ‘reservation’ jurisdiction in which AC could be tried – or maybe a ‘seastead’ – then poor people on welfare would not join because it would be a worse deal for them. If the AC reservation showed signs of success, then detractors will just say, “It only appears to work, but that’s because it excludes needy people, like health insurance plans that exclude sick people.”
On the other hand, the group of people who are especially attracted to such a system are wanna-be criminals trying to evade their governments’ enforcement of their local laws. Policies regarding illegal drugs are debatable, and of course libertarians and anarchists usually despise them. But if you were to create a society with an extreme concentration of drug-desiring people combined with the unlimited availability of those substances, then it’s easy to see how that society would fail, and that the portrayal of that failure as a justification for current government practices would be unfair.
So it’s a, “heads I win, tails you lose,” situation.
Arnold, you’re brilliant when you talk about economics and finance. When you go down the path of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist theory, which has (1) dubious, at best, ethical foundations, and (2) no practical application in the world we actually live in, I rapidly lose interest. I’ve basically stopped visiting Econ-Log because they devote so many of their posts to sermons on libertarian theology, a faith to which I do not belong.
I’m just a nobody citizen with no particular credentials, but I throw this out just in case you might it think it worth paying attention to.
Then I would ask why are we already doing it in so many areas?
I know people here seem to hate the reply button, but what would it take to convince you?
I am not saying that all economic activity should be heavily regulated. I think it’s great that the Internet has operated with little regulation up till now. It’s just that theoretical arguments that the entire economy should be similarly deregulated don’t seem practical to me. Moreover, I think the point already noted here is true: the Internet operates against a background of legally enforced rules of contract, intellectual property, fraud, torts, etc.
I understand, and I’m not here to start a fight.
But dang, isn’t this the first time AK has mentioned AC by name in a long while? It’s the only time I ever remember.
Yesterday I saw ONE cop. He was hired at the convention center privately. I didn’t even see any on the interstate they supposedly regulate. I see AC as the norm and what people assume exists as the theoretical. That is just me.
It seems social norms of cooperation and consideration are what you are talking about when you say AC.
Fans of regulation credit a halo effect from cops, laws, and courts. I’m sure there are a number of people who need such things to not murder.
For the vast majority of us, we voluntarily comply with social norms because human nature is generally very prosocial.
I don’t know if I’d call it AC, but maybe call it proof that the foundations that AC require are demonstrated on a daily basis.
But I’d certainly agree that what you are referring to is quite outside the sphere of government protection/interference/regulation.
What do you think the interstate would be like if there weren’t any cops? Where do you think the word “highwayman” comes from? Painfully obvious answer: from a time when there was no effective law enforcement on the highways.
When free market advocates talk about which government action is constructive and which is not, I’m all ears. When the discussion veers off into airy-fairy Robert Nozick land, I lose interest.
If police are the thing that stops crime, why is there so much crime in many places where there are lots of cops? And so little crime in many places with few cops?
I think you are conflating the theory of police with the reality. Not to say police do nothing, but they are not even close to sufficient to stop crime. Otherwise, totalitarian states could rule without danger of overthrow.
AC and minarchists stress the voluntary societal norms that accomplish what you are talking about. Some do ignore the role that states do play, but you sound like you are doing the opposite.
Nobody says you don’t need societal norms. (Of course, to the extent societal norms are important, that might suggest circumspection about importing outsiders who might not share the existing societal norms.) The point is, in any society, societal norms don’t work with everybody. Surprise, surprise.
To take an extreme example, we have a societal norm against sexually abusing children. Unfortunately, not everyone in the society abides by that norm. Indeed, not everyone in the society who is, to outward appearances, functional and law-abiding adheres to that societal norm.
No doubt, some would take the above as a point from which to launch into a fantastical Nozickian discourse on “private” enforcement of “norms.” Yawn.
To me, it looks like your posts are coherent on this. You criticized Kling for going into a pretty mild discussion of AC as it pertains to WWW.
But then you shifted to arguing that AC Cannot be an all encompassing solution.
What am I missing?
My only point was that discussion of which government policies are constructive and which are destructive seems a worthwhile endeavor. Speculative theorizing over whether a society without political authority is possible, on the other hand, seems like a complete waste of time based on a total failure to understand human nature. If that’s your thing, though, enjoy yourself.
I think it is hypothesis testing territory.
I saw one cop, privately hired at a venue (I’m not sure I like this tradition of privately hiring off-hours cops either btw). He wasn’t even needed.
I saw none on the highway.
I’m not projecting any more or less than this observation except that it should provoke some soul-searching on millions of more people than it ever will.
If the police had a policy of not responding to calls from the convention center event you attended, and that were known to the general public, isn’t it likely that the venue would have attracted visitors of an unwanted kind?
You seem to be assuming that everything that works in our society would function just as well without law enforcement existing in the background. I don’t think that assumption is warranted. But if you want to indulge it, knock yourself out.
Yes, and combined with an agenda based bias against self defense I call that government dysregulation.
You can’t cherry pick.
Oh, and this isn’t hypothetical.
I often bring up how they told our subdivision if we didn’t annex the roads we were denied police and school buses. Massive expenditures and taxation later we still don’t get school buses or police patrols afaict.
In reality, the govt did exactly what you suggested. I don’t think I’m special.
Now that you mention it our roads are still shite.
We’ve gotten nothing out of the deal so far.
But at least they no longer publically anmouncing we arent nder their protection umbrella, which is borderline malfeasance btw.
I think you and the reviewer assume a huge change moving in that direction. Every here I look I see us mostly already there.
*your posts aren’t coherent on this.