I will respond to David Friedman's comments on
my positions in the debate, and hopefully later I will have
time to critique his position more thoroughly. I will use
David's enumeration of paragraphs.
1. First of all, I am not saying that all
these negative consequences I ascribe to anarchism are only
possible, I think they are probable. The probable
consequences: increasing crime because there are
individuals not protected by a defense agencies
that used to be protected by the state i.e more easy
victims; incentivizing the acquisition of military hardware by
criminal gangs to increase their pool of potential victims(
something they do not do it now because it makes no sense for
them now) , an arms race between criminal gangs and defense
agencies, as well as foreign tyrants that would attempt to rob
and extort the weakest of us , i.e., those that could not
deter their aggression; an increase in the possibility of
civil war inside United States because all conflicts between
defensive agencies with armies have this potential outcome -
something that is not true today, even under our mixed system.
I have explained the premises that lead me to these
conclusions, I would like to know which ones David disputes.
David said that the defense agencies would normally not fight,
implying sometimes they would. If two defense agencies fight
that is a mini war here in the United States. Some of these
wars will draw in other defense agencies , increasing the
scope of the war and have collateral damage that would make
life miserable in your city. You don't need too many of them
for things to be horrible.
The premises for my conclusion that there would be an increase
in criminality are: there will always be people that choose
predation, they prefer to pick on the weakest links- victims,
there are individuals not protected by a defense
agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e more easy
victims. Thus, more crime.
Premises for the conclusion that criminal gangs would be
incentivized to buy military hardware.
With a central government there is no incentive for criminal
gangs to acquire tanks, guided missiles, or drones, because
that just makes it easier for them to be caught and they do
not increase their pool of victims. However, once the state is
removed every investment in military hardware increases the
amount of potential victims. David thinks that this investment
would be unwise on their part. How does he know? Does he know
cost-benefit analysis of criminality ? On the face of it, a
small investment in guided missiles would increase the
potential for extortion enormously. More and more people would
just have to give in to the demand of extortion.
The same logic applies to foreign tyrants and criminals.
David's answer is, he would depend on charity to pay for a
professional army that could deter these threats of extortion.
I think this is imprudent and I would never rely on charity to
protect my freedom, and all my property. It is too flimsy a
reed on which to support your whole life. I think your chances
protecting your liberty and property are greater by socially
organizing with people that are willing to pay for such an
important service and commit to this legally in the form of a
limited government.
In the debate, each of us has a right to define what we
consider optimal social organization, David argued that no
government was the optimum, I argued that limited government
was the optimum. Each of us has to live with the likely
consequences of setting up that structure, including the
possibilities of deviating from it to some degree. The
deviations from limited government I criticize and try to
change, but by and large I consider the American experiment a
great success (compared to any previously existing anarchist
model), providing a great life for me, most Americans and I
suspect for David as well. Contrary to anarchists , I don't
consider it a failure because we have strayed from the model
to some degree.
The deviations from David's model,
we didn't even get into!
Our horrible civil war, was one such case of a deviation from
the principles of limited government, which depend on the
consent of the governed and the recognition that if there is a
fundamental difference regarding social organization there
should be a procedure to secede peacefully, like I have
suggested and offered the anarchists and none of them
seem to be interested in it. They appear to have no interest
to move to an anarchist zone within the United States and then
secede.
2. The more security agencies there are , the more probability
there will be more conflicts; and one of the parties will
resort to physical force to enforce their view of what is
right. If there is no law of the land that applies to
everyone, then on top of all disputes we now have we will also
have disputes about what the law should be on every issue ,
criminal law, civil law,, criminal procedure, civil procedure
, inheritance law , tort law , penalties , etc. This
will also increase the amount of disputes and conflicts,
regardless of whether many agencies refer conflicts to
arbitration. It also increases the uncertainty of what the law
is, which makes business and investment, less likely.
I describe those hunter gatherer societies of the first
million years that had no government as anarchy because I view
the lack of government as the essential characteristic for
anarchism. The point was that there was very little progress
during that period, nor was there much progress or a great
civilization in the Icelandic anarchist experiment or the
Somali anarchist experiment. In fact, all of these had very
high levels of predation and poverty. Compare that with the
American limited government experiment. It is night and day.
I explained why the government was instrumental in the
increased progress; for example, irrigation canals, generals
laws like the Roman law and reduction of internal military
conflicts, because there was a monopoly of major force in the
government.
3. It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of defense
agencies there would be under anarchy and how they would
operate, and what plans they would offer to their customers ,
but it is probable that there will be a variety of plans and
kinds of defense agencies, some of which would not refer all
matters to arbitration, some would be simply alliances of
people that feel close and share values, even bad values like
white power groups, black power groups, Muslims that believe
in sharia law and want to apply it, pedophiles that want to
protect each and form alliances, security agencies that
advertise better judges and their outcomes in home judicial
practice/better than the arbitration, criminal gangs that just
want to protect each other and practice predation etc.
If they have sufficient military power, nobody will mess with
them.
Which ones would go broke and how long it would take them to
go broke is difficult to predict, but David seems to think he
knows.
4. Voters do not have to be ignorant of political issues or
candidates. Nor is necessarily irrational for them to spend
some time in making these decisions that effect their freedom,
property and every aspect of their life. In fact it is quite
rational to do so and responsible citizens within the context
of their lives should allocate some time to this value. Not
only to vote correctly, but to influence how other people vote
and think, and thus affect the social organization in which
they live, i.e., their society. One of the reasons we do the
correct thing is to serve as an example to others, and thus
influence their actions as well. This is one such case when
assuming some social responsibility helps improve your chances
of having your individual rights respected. It is not just the
issues and candidates, it's also the principles.
I spent time discussing political issues, including whether
anarchism is the optimal system to affect the out come. If I
didn't think I could affect the outcome I would not do it. I
act with purpose. Some of these purposes are indirect like I
mentioned above.
The anarchist movement is draining the energy of the people
that are fighting for freedom and limited government today in
this country. It is the logical consequence of accepting
anarchism. Don't run for office, don't vote, don't discuss any
public policy because they're all wrong because they are all
enacted by government and government is ëvil". They are
shirking their social responsibility, and if the government
becomes even more unlimited, with more infringements on our
individual rights, they will have to take their part of the
blame. I on the other hand, can rest with a good conscience
because I'm doing everything I can to prevent more
infringements of our rights. I expose the flaws and
contradictions in the flawed public policies, politicians and
journalists. You can see my interviews on YouTube/Jan Helfeld
and make up your own mind about my contribution.