nualle:
Ah, someone who thinks!
Cart-before-horse. Threat of govt reprisal is an attempt to address the preexisting "free-rider" (cheater) problem. It is not the only possible way of addressing it. Lack of a govt does not "bring on" the problem.
That may very well be true theoretically. Then again, the non-existence of an impartial referee may "invite" rule-breaking by temptation.
I don't know where you're getting the "short-term" idea about anarchistic cooperation. Free people can cooperate together for as long as they both wish to.
What I mean is that IF the free-rider problem is endemic, people can only cooperate for a very short period of time UNTIL the appearance of a free rider, whose presence then alerts others to cease work (so as to ride free themselves), and therefore cooperation.
The instability isn't necessary if the systems remain of human scale.
Please elaborate on "human scale."
As for high transactional costs... I wonder if the subsidies govts provide to some methods over others isn't skewing our perspective on those costs.
I'd agree that the "government subsidy" is costly IF we have perfect information. Unfortunately, when information is neither free nor equally distributed, it becomes possible to engage in endemic cheating, which then creates a huge drag effect on the society as a whole UNLESS there is a refree (which admittedly adds to the net cost).
Here is the rub. I agree unreservedly that freedom requires leisure. Any system that provides leisure to some by shunting their toil onto others is inherently unjust (and, depending on its rhetoric, most likely hypocritical as well).
First of all, technology can take much of the toil burden in an advanced industrialized society. Secondly, why would you say such a system is unjust? In a relatively free market (anarchist or libertarian), the market prices the value of work. If being a physician is desirable, it will generate a sufficient income as to provide the doctor with leisure. Everyone is free to study hard to get into med school and go through a grueling residence to become a neuro-surgeon.
This is one reason why anarchism (and, I would argue, any sort of justice) can only be realized on a small scale and requires adults personally committed to freedom.
And what kind of a society would that be where humans only transact with each other in an extremely small scale?
I don't mean to offend, but: this sort of statement makes me wonder how many Libertarians have thoroughly thought out the ramifications of individual freedom and responsibility.
Please elaborate.
What is the justification for taking that punishment out of the hands of the harmed person? If the State punishes, it is because it is the State that was harmed. But the State is not a person, to suffer harm.
The only valid reason to follow a rule is to avoid actually harming another real person. If you break a rule, and thus harm a person, it is that person whose right and responsibility it is to bring that to your attention and, as appropriate, require redress. The only role for other people, who aren't involved, is to witness the process to make sure the redress required isn't itself unjust.
Ah, but without a theoretically impartial referee, how would one individual obtain redress from another who wronged him? How would the first individual obtain the coercive power necessary to obtain redress?
Under such a system, instead of competing by studying, working and making money, individuals must compete by acquiring and enhancing the means of coercion, which inevitably becomes violence. Such a system is likely to degenerate into one of tribal vengeance.
Badahur, you brought up the "free-rider" problem against anarchism. I give you the "inevitable abuse" problem against government. As soon as redress is separated from harm by the intervention of a govt, the agents of govt gain the opportunity and temptation to become "free-riders," hiding and defending their privileges under color of law.
A very excellent point. There is a different set of problems with libertarianism (because it does require the presence of government). That is where checks & balances come into play. Simply put, the notion of anarchism vs. libertarianism is whether one wants a society in which one must become a judge, jury and executioner himself (or perish) or a society where people agree to a social contract and incur a cost (a minimal one in comparison in my analysis) to maintain fairplay.
Chipper:
Excellent points overall. As ideal communism is impossible, so is ideal anarchism with one hundred-percent liberty (and responsibility). The idea of libertarianism, in my view, is to have a social contract, i.e. the notion of government, AND to maximize liberty and responsibility (without, of course, reaching that 100%).
It is a difficult trick, which is why we haven't seen one yet.
