Property and the Social Order | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Property and the Social Order | Hans-Hermann Hoppe


I first want to explain to you what I consider to be the problem of social order Alone on his Island Robinson Crusoe can obviously do whatever he pleases for him the question concerning rules of orderly human conduct and of Social cooperation Simply does not arise This question can only arise once a second person namely Friday arrives on the Island Yet even then the question remains largely irrelevant so long as no scarcity exists Suppose the Island is the garden of Eden All external goods are available in Super Abundance They are free goods just as air The air that we breathe is a free good [than] normal circumstances Whatever a crusoe does with these [goods] his actions have no repercussions Neither with respect to his own future supply of such goods nor Regarding the present or future supply of the same goods for Friday hence it is impossible that a conflict concerning the use of such goods can arise between crusoe and Friday [A] conflict is possible only if Goods are scarce and Only then is there a need to formulate rules that make orderly conflict free cooperation possible in the Garden, Edan only to Scarce Goods exist A person’s Physical Body and It’s standing room Crusoe and Friday each have only one body and can stand only at one place at a time Hence even in the garden of Eden conflicts between crusoe and Friday can Arise namely if crusoe and Friday Would want to occupy the same standing room simultaneously? without coming into physical conflict with each other accordingly even in the garden of Eden rules of orderly Social conduct must exist namely Rules regarding the proper location and movement of human bodies and Outside the Garden of Eden in the realm of all around scarcity there must be rules That regulate the use not [only] of personal bodies, but of everything that is scarce such that all Possible conflicts can be ruled out [as] this is the problem of social order in the history of Social and political thought Myriad Proposals have been offered as solutions to the problem of Social order and this multitude of mutually incompatible Proposals has contributed to the widespread belief that the search for a single correct solution is futile and Illusory Yet a correct solution does exist There is no reason to just to succumb [to] Moral relativism Indeed the solution to the problem of social order has [been] known for hundreds of years The solution is the idea of Private property Now let me formulate the solution first for the special case represented by the Garden of Eden and then for the general case represented by the real world of all around scarcity In the garden of Eden [the] solution is provided by the simple rule Stipulating that everyone may place or move his own body wherever he pleases provided only that no one else is already standing there and occupying the same space [and] Outside the Garden of Eden in the realm of all-around scarcity the solution is provided by four logically interrelated rules first Every person is a private exclusive owner of his [own] physical body in fact Who else if not? Crusoe should be the owner of Crusoe’s body Friday or Friday and Crusoe jointly Yet these solutions Somebody Else owns my body or that my body is owned jointly by myself in somebody else Yet these other rules Would not help avoid conflict Rasa it would create conflict and make conflict permanent second every person is a private owner of All Nature given Goods That he has perceived as scarce and put to use by means of his body before any body else has done, so again who else if not the first owner a First user should be their owner the second user or the first and the second user jointly Yet again such Rulings would be contrary to the very purpose of norms namely of helping to Avoid Conflict rather than to create it third Every person who with the help of his body and his originally appropriated Goods Produces Nupro [product] thereby becomes the proper owner of these products Provided only that in the process of production. He does not physically damage the Goods [Owned] by other persons and Force once a good has been acquired through first two original appropriation or been produced Ownership it in it in such a good can only be acquired by means of a voluntary contractual transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner I Will spare myself here the task of providing a detailed? ethical as well as Economic justification of these rules I have done this elsewhere if you look in my book on Theory of Socialism and capitalism you find detailed justifications of these rules or in my book on the ethics and economics of private property [however] a few statements in this connections are in order contrary to the frequently heard claim that the institution of private [property] is only some sort of convention it must be categorically stated that a convention serves a purpose and It is something to which an alternative exists the latin alphabet for instance Serves the purpose of written communication [and] there exists an alternative to it Such as for [instance] the cyrillic alphabet that Is why it is referred [to] as a convention? what however is the purpose of action norms if No interpersonal Conflict existed That is if due to some pre stabilized harmony of all interests No situation ever arises in which two or more people want to use one and the same good in incompatible ways Then we would not need any norms It is a purpose of norms to help avoid otherwise unavoidable Conflict Now a norm that generates conflict rather than Help avoid it is contrary [to] the very purpose of norms it is a dysfunctional norm or a perversion and with regard to the purpose of conflict avoidance The institution of private property is definitely not just a convention because no alternative to it exists only private exclusive Property makes it possible that all otherwise unavoidable Conflicts can be avoided and only the principle of property acquisition through acts of original appropriation performed by specific individuals at specific points in time and at specific locations makes it possible that Conflicts can be avoided from the beginning of Mankind Onward since only the first appropriation of some previously Unappropriated good can be conflict free simply because by definition No one else had any previous dealings with this good now as Important as this insight is that is the insight that the institution of private property? Ultimately grounded in x of original appropriation is without alternative [given] the Desire even the goal of Conflict free interaction and of peace it is not sufficient to [establish] A functioning social order For even if everyone knows how conflict can be avoided it is still possible [that] people simply do not want to avoid conflict because they expect to benefit from it at the Expense of others in fact as Long as mankind is what it is There will always exist murderers robbers thieves thugs and con artists and That has people who do not act according to these rules that I mentioned before Hence every social order if it is to be successfully maintained requires institutions and mechanisms Designed to keep such rule breakers in check how to accomplish this task and by whom the standard Reply to this question is to say this task that is the enforcement of law and order is the first and primary duty indeed the res or d’etre of the State in Particular this is also the answer given by classical Liberals such as my master Would wish for mises? Whether or not this answer is correct Depends on how state is defined the state according to the standard definition Not just a definition [that] I just arbitrarily Assume here according to the standard definition is not a regular specialized firm [Rozzie] the State is defined as an agency. That is characterized by two unique logically connected features The first one is the state is an agency that exercises A Territorial Monopoly of ultimate decision-making That is the state is the ultimate arbiter in every case of conflict in court including Conflicts involving itself it allows no appeal above and Beyond itself and second the state an agency that exercises A Territorial Monopoly of taxation that is it is an agency that? unilaterally fixes the price that private citizens must pay for the state’s service as ultimate judge and enforcer of law and order now as widespread as a standard view concerning the necessity of the institution of the state as a provider of law and order is it stands in clear contradiction to elementary economic and Moral laws and principles first off Among economists and philosophers there exist two near universally accepted propositions the first one is every Monopoly is bad from the Viewpoint of Consumers not from the Viewpoint of the producer every producer loves to be a monopolist Monopoly is here understood in its classic meaning as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or a service or as the absence of free entry into one particular Line of production only one agency agency a may produce a given good or service x such a Monopoly is bad for [consumers] because shielded from potential New Entrance into a given area of production The price of the product will be higher and the quality will be lower Than would otherwise be the case under competitive conditions and the second almost universally accepted proposition among economists and philosophers is The production of law and order that is off security is a Primary function of the state as I just defined it security is here understood in the wide sense that is adopted in the American declaration of independence namely as A protection of life property and the pursuit of happiness From domestic violence it is from Crime as well as external or foreign aggression that is of war Now both of these propositions are apparently incompatible with each other This however has rarely caused any concern among Philosophers and economists and Insofar as it did concern Any problems for them? The typical reaction has been one of taking exception with the first proposition the Monopoly proposition Rather than the second one that we need a monopolist of law and order yet there [exist] fundamental theoretical reasons and Mountains of empirical Evidence That it is indeed [the] second proposition That we need a monopolist to protect us. Which is false as a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making and of law enforcement [the] [state] is not just like any other monopoly such as a milk or a car monopoly that produces milk or cars of comparatively lower quality and higher prices in Contrast to all other Monopolists the state is not only prot only Produce inferior Goods lousy goods But bad’s or non goods in fact the state must first produce beds such as Texas for instance before it can produce anything that might be considered a lousy product If an agency is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict Then it is also a judge in all conflicts in evolving itself consequently instead of merely preventing and resolving Conflicts A Monopolist of ultimate decision-Making will also cause and provoke conflict in Order to settle it then to his own advantage That is if one can appeal to the state only for Justice justice will be necessarily perverted in favor of the State Constitutions and supreme [courts] notwithstanding These constitutions and courts are always state Constitutions and state courts and whatever Limitations on state action they may set or find Invariably is decided by agents of the [very] same institution under consideration predictably then the definition of property and protection will be Continually altered and the range of Uris diction expanded to the state’s advantage The idea of some given eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will completely disappear [and] will be replaced by the idea of law as Legislation that is as arbitrary state made law moreover as Ultimate judge the state is also a monopolist of taxation. That is it can [unilaterally] without the consent of everyone affected determine the price that it’s subject must pay for the state’s provision of perverted law however a tax funded life and property [Protection] [Agency] is a contradiction in terms It is an expropriation property protector motivated then as everyone is by self-interest and by the disutility of labor, but equipped with a unique power to [tax] State Agents will Invariably strive to maximize expenditures on protection and almost all of [a] nation’s wealth can be conceivably consumed by the cost of protection and at the same time to minimize the actual production of protection the more money one can spend and The less one must work for it the better off one is Now apart from the fundamental error of statism statism in General additional errors are involved in this special case of a democratic state a detailed treatment of this subject again has been provided by myself in another book of mine a Democracy the God that failed But I want to make at [least] a brief mention on this The traditional pre-Modern state form is that of an absolute monarchy? Yet monarchies were faulted in particular also by classical Liberals such as mises for being incompatible with the basic principle of equality before the law monarchy instead arrested obviously on personal Privilege thus the critics of monarchies argued the monarchical state had to be replaced by a Democratic one in opening participation and entry into [a] state government to everyone on equal terms not just to an hereditary class of nobles it was thought that the principle of equality of all before the Law had been satisfied However this democratic equality before the law is something entirely different then and incompatible with the idea of one universal law equally applicable to everyone Everywhere and at all [times] in fact the objectionable Schism and inequality of a higher law of Kings versus A subordinate law of Ordinary subjects is fully preserved under democracy in the separation of public versus private law and the supremacy of public law over private law under Democracy Everyone is equal insofar as entry into government is open to all on equal terms Everyone can become king so to say not only a privileged circle of people Thus in Democracy no personal privileges or privileged persons exist however functional privileges and privileged functions continue to exist public officials as long as they act in an official capacity are governed and protected by public law and Occupy thereby a privileged position Visa [V] persons acting under the mirror thority of private law in particular Public officials are permitted to finance or subsidize their own activities through, Texas that is they do not as every private law subject must earn their income through the production and the subsequent sale of Goods or services to voluntarily buying or not buying consumers [razza] as public officials. [they] [are] permitted to engage in and live off What in private dealings? between private law subjects is considered theft and stolen loot Thus privileged and legal discrimination and the distinction between Rulers and Subjects will not disappear under democracy to the contrary [Roz’s] N. Being restricted to princes and Nobles under Democracy Privileges will be available to everyone Everyone can engage now in seft and live off stolen. Loot if only he becomes a public official predictably then under democratic conditions the tendency of every Monopoly of ultimate decision-making to increase the price of justice and to lower its quality and Substitute injustice for Justice is not diminished, but is actually Aggravated as an hereditary Monopolist a king or a prince Regards the territory and the people under his jurisdiction [as] his personal property and engages in the monopolistic exploitation of this property under Democracy Monopoly and Monopolistic Exploitation do not disappear Rasa. What happens is simply this? instead of a prince and a nobility who regard the country as their private property [a] temporary and Interchangeable caretaker is put in monopolistic charge of the country the caretaker does not own the country But as long as he is in office he is permitted to [use] it to his and his prodigious Advantage He owns its current use or what is called [Yuzu] frucht But he does not own its capital stock This does not eliminate exploitation to the contrary it makes exploitation less Calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock exploitation becomes short-sighted and Capital consumption will you systematically? Promote it. Let me just give an example. I can give you a house and Make you the owner of the house or I can make you a temporary caretaker of a house For four years you can try to get as much out of the house as you want But you cannot pass it on as an inheritance [you] cannot sell it in the market and so forth will you treat the house in a different way? Whether you are [a] private owner who can pass it on in the form of an inheritance Or will be you just a temporary caretaker Who cannot pass it on you cannot sell it in the market and the answer is should [be] Clear as daylight of course if you are only a temporary Caretaker of the house you try to run down the capital get as much out of it in a short a possible time as Possible whereas as a private owner you will try to preserve the value of it in order to pass it on in some sort of intact form to the next generation [democratic] politicians Are people who try to Rob the country as quickly as possible? Because after four years they have no chance to Rob anymore after eight years whatever the term is now if the state and Especially is a democratic state then is demonstrably incapable of creating and maintaining social order if instead of helping Avoid conflict the state is a source of permanent conflict and if rather than assuring Legal Security and predictability the state itself continuously generates insecurity and unpredictability through its legislation and replaces constant law with flexible and arbitrary legislation then inescapability the question arises as to what is then the correct and Obviously none status solution to the problem of enforcing social order now the solution is what I call a private law society that is a Society in which every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws no public law granting privileges to specific persons or specific functions, and no public property exists in this society There is only private law and Private property equally applicable to each and every one No one is permitted to acquire property by any means other than through original appropriation production or Voluntary Exchange and no one possesses a privilege to text and expropriate Moreover in a private law society no one is permitted to prohibit Anyone else from usIng his property in order to enter any line of production He wishes to enter and compete against whomever he wants to compete specifically regarding the problem at hand that is in a private law society the production of security of law and order will be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies Competing for a voluntarily paying Clientele or non paying Clientele Just as a production of all other goods and services now it would be presumptuous to wanting to predict the precise shape And form of the security industry that would emerge within the framework of a private law Society however it is not difficult at all to predict a few central changes that would fundamentally and [favourably] distinguish a competitive security industry from the present all too well known status production of injustice and order first off But in a complex [society] based on the division of labor Self-Defense will play only a secondary role as I will explain in a moment It should [be] emphasized from the outset that in a private law society everyone’s right to Defend oneself from aggression against one’s person and property is entirely undisputed in Distinct contrast to the present situation to this present status situation which renders people increasingly unarmed and defenseless against aggressors in a private law society no restrictions on the private ownership of firearms and other weapons exist everyone’s Elementary right to engage in self-Defense to protect his life and property against invaders would be sacrosanct and As one knows from the experience of the not so wild wild west as well as numerous recent empirical investigations into the relationship between the frequency of gun ownership and crime rates more guns Imply Less crime Recalls [is] Norwegian incident that just happened for 40 minutes this guy was shooting down people Now would that have been possible if people had been armed He might have killed a single person and then he would have been dead himself Just in as in today’s complex economy we do not produce our own shoes or suits or telephones, but partake in the Advantages of the division of [Labour] so it is also to be expected that we will also do so when it comes to the production of security Especially the more property a person owns and the richer a society becomes Hence most security services will without doubt Be provided by specialized agencies competing for voluntarily paying clients by various Private police insurance and arbitration agencies if unwanted to summarize in One word the decisive difference and advantage of a competitive security industry as Compared to the current status practice this word would be contract The state [as] the ultimate decision-Maker and judge operates currently in a contract less legal vacuum There exists. No contract between the state and its citizens [it] is not contractually fixed what is actually owned by whom and What accordingly [is] to be protected it is not fixed. What service the state is to provide? what is to happen if the protected was the allegedly protected people Think that the state failed in its task of protecting them [rather] the state Unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them per legislation during the game obviously such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers just iMagine a Security provider whether that is a police an insurer or an arbitrator? Whose offer consisted in something like this I? Will not contractually guarantee you anything I? Will not tell you what specific things, I will regard as you are to be protected property nor will I tell you what I obliged myself to do if According to your opinion. I do not fulfill my service to you, but in any case I reserve the right [to] Unilaterally Determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service now any security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers each private freely financed security producer instead must offer its protective clients a contract and These contracts must in order to appear acceptable to voluntarily paying consumers Contain clear property descriptions as well as clearly defined mutually mutual services and obligations Moreover each party to the contract for the duration and until the [fulfillment] of the contract would be bound by its terms and conditions and every change in terms or conditions Would require the unanimous consent of all [parties] concerned? specifically in order to appear acceptable to security Buyers These contracts must contain provisions About what will be done in the case of a conflict or a dispute between the protector [our]? was the insurer and his own protected or insured Clients and Also must have provisions What will happen in the case of a conflict between different protectors or different insurers? and their respective clients and In this regard [only] one mutually agreeable solution exists in these cases of Conflicts between Insurers and insured protectors and protected or different protection agencies and so forth [in] these cases the conflicting parties must contractually agree to arbitration by a mutually trusted but independent third party and as Sword party this [search] party [too] is freely financed and stands in competition with other arbitration agencies and its clients [that] is the insurers and the insured Expect of these arbitration agencies that they come up with a verdict that is Recognized as fair and just by all sides because only arbitrators capable of forming such Judgments that are deemed just and fair by all sides will succeed in the arbitration market arbitrators that are incapable of this and that are viewed as biased or Partial will disappear from the Market no one will choose them in another case where? Arbitration is needed Now from this fundamental advantage of a private law society or other advantages follow first off competition among police insurers and arbitrators for paying Clients would bring about a tendency Toward a continuous fall in the price of Protection [per] insured value Thus rendering protection increasingly more affordable whereas under present monopolistic conditions the price of Protection will Steadily arise and become increasingly unaffordable Furthermore as I have already indicated protection and security our goods and services that compete with other goods and services if More resources are allocated to protection Few work can be expended on cars vacations food and drink also resources allocated to the protection of One group Let’s say people living on the pacific for instance compete with resources x that For the protection of another group that is let’s say people living on the atlantic [as] a tax funded protection monopolist the states allocation of resources Will necessarily be? Arbitrary there will be over production or under production of Security as compared to other competing goods and services and there will be over protection of some Individuals or groups or regions and under protection of other groups or regions? indistinct contrast in a system of freely competing protection agencies all arbitrariness of allocation all Over or under production would disappear protection would be accorded the relative importance that it has in the eyes of voluntarily paying consumers and no person group or Region would receive protection at the expense of any other one Each and everyone would receive protection in accordance with his own payments the most important advantage of a private Contract based production of law and order however is of a qualitative nature first there is the fight against crime the state as we know is notoriously inefficient [in] this regard because the state agents and Trusted with this task are paid out of Texas that [is] independent of their productivity Why should one work if one is also paid for doing nothing at all in Fact it can be expected that the state Agents take an interest in maintaining a moderately high crime rate because this way they can justify ever increased funding were for state agents the victims of Crime and the indemnification and compensation of such victims plays at best and Negligible role the state does not Indemnify the victims of crime they are supposed to protect you But they don’t do anything in order to help you if they fail in this task to the contrary the harmed victims are still further insulted by making them as taxpayers pay for the incarceration and the rehabilitation of criminals Should he ever be captured the situation in a private law Society is entirely different? security providers in particular insurers Will have to indemnify their clients in the case of actual damage Otherwise they would simply not find any clients and hence they must operate efficiently in this regard They must be efficient in the prevention of crime for unless they can prevent a crime They would have to pay up Further even if a criminal act could not be prevented they must be efficient in detecting and recovering the stolen loot because otherwise they must pay to replace these goods and in particular They must be efficient in the detection and apprehension of the criminals for if the criminal is Apprehended or only if the criminal is apprehended is it possible for the insurers to make the criminal pay? for the compensation on to the victim and Thus reduce their own costs of operation Moreover A Competitive and contract based security industry as a general piece promoting effect States are as I have already explained by Nature aggressive institutions They can cause or provoke conflict in [Aura] to then solve it to their own advantage or put differently as Text funded Monopolists of ultimate decision-making States can externalize the costs associated with aggressive behavior on to others namely the hapless taxpayers and Accordingly they will tend to be more aggressive These are V their own population and also Visa Vie Foreign us then normal firms or normal people would ever be [Indistinct] contrast competing private insurers are by Nature defensive and peaceful organizations on the one hand this is because every act of aggression is costly and an insurance company engaged in aggressive Conduct would require comparatively higher premiums involving the Loss of clients to cheaper non aggressive competitors and On the other hand it is [not] possible to ensure it oneself against every conceivable risk Rather it is only possible to [insure] oneself against accidents. That is risks over Whose outcome the insured has no control and to which [he] contributes nothing Just it is possible to insure oneself against the risk of deaths and fire for instance But it is impossible to insure oneself against the risk of committing suicide Tomorrow or setting one’s own house on fire similarly it is impossible to insure oneself against the risk of business failure or Of unemployment, or of disliking one’s neighbor Four in each case one has some control over the event in question most significantly the uninsurable ‘Ti of individual actions and sentiments in Contrast to insurability of excellence Implies that it is also impossible to ensure oneself against the risk of damages resulting from one’s own prior aggression or provocation Instead every insurer must restrict the actions of his clients so as to exclude all Aggression and provocation on their part that is any insurance Against social disaster such [as] crime must be contingent on the insured submitting themselves to specify norms of civilized non aggressive conduct furthermore due to the same reason and financial concerns Insurers will tend to require That their clients abstain from all forms of vigilance [or] vigilante justice excePt perhaps under quite extraordinary circumstances because vigilante justice Even if it is justified Invariably causes uncertainty and provokes possible third party intervention By obliging their clients instead to submit to regular publicized procedures Whenever they think that they have been victimized these disturbances and associated costs can [be] largely avoided and Lastly it is worthwhile pointing out that while States [aztecs] funded agencies can and do engage in the large-scale prosecution of victimless crimes such as illegal drug use prostitution or gambling [z] so-called crimes victimless crimes would tend to be of little or no was in a system of freely financed protection agencies because Protection against such victimless crimes would require higher insurance premiums but since these crimes unlike genuine crimes against persons and property Do not create victims very few people if [any] at all would be willing to spend higher insurance premiums on such Protection against something that does not victimize them still more While states as I have already said are always and everywhere eager to disarm its population and [Thus] [robit] of an essential means of self-defense private law societies are characterized by an unrestricted right to self-Defense and Hence by Widespread private gun ownership and weapons ownership in General Again, just imagine a security producer who demanded of its prospective clients That they would first have to completely disarm Themselves before it would be willing to defend the clients life and property now correctly everyone would think of this as a bad joke and Refused to accept such an offer [hand] me over all of your knives, and then I will protect you You know what’s up then? Freely Finance insurance companies that demand that potential clients first hand over all of their means of self-defense as a Prerequisite of protection would immediately arouse the utmost Suspicion as to their true motives and they would quickly go bankrupt in their own best interest then Insurance companies would actually reward armed clients in particular those client who are able to certify some level of training in the handling of Arms been charging them lower premiums Reflecting the lower risks that they represent in the same way as insurers Nowadays charge less if home owners have an alarm system or a safe installed So what a trained gun owner? represent a lower insurance risk Last and most importantly a system of competing protection agencies would have a two-fold impact on the development of law on the [one] hand it would allow for a greater variability of law Rather than imposing a uniform set [of] standards [onto] everyone as under statist conditions protection agencies could compete against each other not just through prices, but also through product differentiation there could exist side by side for instance Catholic protection agencies, or insurers applying Canon law Jewish agencies applying Mosaic law and Muslim agencies applying islamic law and agencies applying secular law of one variety or another all of them sustained by a voluntarily paying Clientele Consumers could choose the law applied to them and their property and no one would have to live under foreign law and On the other hand the very same system of private law and order production would promote a tendency Towards the unification and harmonization of law because the domestic so so-called domestic Catholic Jewish Roman Islamic law and so forth would apply obviously only to the person and property of those who had chosen this [or] Canon law for instance would apply only to professed Catholics and deal solely with [Intra] Catholic conflict and conflict resolution Yet it is Obviously also possible of course that a catholic might have a conflict with a subscriber of some other law code let’s say a muslim if both law codes [reached] the same or a similar conclusion then no difficulties would arise however if Competing law codes arrived at distinctly different conclusions Si would at least in some cases a problem arises the Domestic intra law would be useless obviously but naturally every insured person would want protection against this contingency of intergroup Conflicts as well and each insurer would have to have provisions in his contract What do we do if such conflicts break out between a jew? Going to Jewish courts and an islamic person going to an islamic court So domestic law would be useless but naturally as I said every person would want protection against the contingency of Intergroup conflicts as well and in this situation it cannot be expected that one insurer or one the Subscribers of would [into] subscribers [of] its law court simply subordinate their own judgment to that of another Insurer and it’s law [raza] as I have already indicated before in this situation there exists only one credible and Acceptable way out of this predicament from the outset every insurer would have to be contractually obliged to submit itself and its clients to arbitration by an independent third party This party would not only be independent But at the same time it would be the unanimous choice of both parties It would be agreed upon because of its commonly perceived Ability to find mutually agreeable [ther] solution solutions in cases of intergroup conflict and disagreement if an arbitrator failed in this task and Arrived at conclusions that were perceived as unfair or as biased By either one of the parties by either one of the insurers or of their clients This person or this agency would not likely be chosen again as an arbitrator in the future and as a result of the constant cooperation of various insurers and arbitrators the tendency Toward the Unification of property and contract law and the harmonization of the rules of procedure Evidence and Conflict resolution would be set in motion Thus in buying protection Insurance every insurer and every insured person becomes a participant in an integrated system of Conflict avoidance and peacekeeping every single Conflict and damage claim Regardless of where and by or against whom would fall in the Uris diction of one or more? Specific insurance Agency and would be handled either by an individual’s insurers Domestic Law or by the International or universal law provisions and procedures agreed upon by everyone in Advance and at Miners’ but administered and conducted by arbitration agencies so hence instead of permanent conflict in dress and legal Insecurity as under the present status conditions in a private law society peace Justice and Legal security would hold sway Thank you very much

Comments

  1. Post
    Author
  2. Post
    Author
    Irdial

    This is the fundamental truth that the people who are slowly waking up are most frightened of; the State, 'democracy' is the cause of all their troubles, not the solution in any way shape or form.

  3. Post
    Author
  4. Post
    Author
  5. Post
    Author
    Curt Howland

    @EsCurve Define "regular"?
    People make rules amongst themselves regardless of whether there is a governing body passing statutes.

  6. Post
    Author
    Franklyn Voorhies

    @elthe as he stated, the incentive is conflict avoidance. he states there is no public space, all property is private eliminating need for public and private laws causing imbalances of protection. power consolidation is addressed by the market(i.e) if the purchasers of securities see a threat in consolidating power they could in turn respond by choosing a competitor of perceived less threat. i think you should listen again, and i dont mean that in a rude or sarcastic manner.

  7. Post
    Author
    LetsTryLiberty

    @elthe I'll reword your comment to speak about statism: What about individuals who aren't protected by govt police? What about wars and WMDs started/made by govt? What about power consolidation in hands of the very same govt that makes, enforces and interprets the law? What about govt agencies that pop up whose primary goal is looting and aggression? And what about protection from the govt in general – public or private space? A command/statist economy may be simpler but not moral ๐Ÿ™‚

  8. Post
    Author
    TheLegalImmigrant05

    @elthe "what about protection in public space" There would be no such thing as "public space" – streets, parks and squares would be owned by individuals or groups of individuals (probably organized as corporations). Think security personnel in Disney World, private security guards at stores, etc.

  9. Post
    Author
  10. Post
    Author
    LetsTryLiberty

    @TheLegalImmigrant05 To those who ask what motivation would anyone have to public goods/services, I ask:

    What's the motivation for selling pet rocks?
    What's the motivation for selling funeral/burial services for pets?
    What's the motivation for selling those copper bracelets that supposedly heal you?

    The answer? The perception that there will be a demand for them. If govt didn't exist, you really think nobody'd figure out how to privately provide formerly publicly-provided goods and services?

  11. Post
    Author
  12. Post
    Author
    LetsTryLiberty

    @TheLegalImmigrant05 I know you weren't asking, but I thought I'd throw that out there before you received any replies. It is so ingrained that current publicly-provided utilities, goods and services would disappear and forever be lost to mankind if it weren't for the benevolent government taking our money from us at the threat of taking away our property, freedom or life (your choice, depending on your degree of protest) to fund them. Civil society in the 21st century could never do better ๐Ÿ˜‰

  13. Post
    Author
    RKAddict101

    I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but one problem has been bugging me so I am wondering what other people think would and should take place in a society of private law. A person should be allowed to produce whatever he wants assuming he does not interfere with anyone else's rights. This being said, would a person be allowed to own an atomic bomb? Would a private law society deal with this danger preemptively or would the average Joe be allowed to buy/produce an atomic bomb?

  14. Post
    Author
    RKAddict101

    @elthe War is aggression among states so technically in a private law society it wouldn't exist. As for the appearing of agencies whose primary goal is looting aggression, it would be dealt in the same way gangs are dealt with today. Protection in public space is a common sense answer in my opinion, if you understand anarcho-capitalism. A person would be allowed to protect himself and private contractors would do whatever they could to protect their clients. WMDs is a question I have asked too.

  15. Post
    Author
    RKAddict101

    @Moragauth Just letting you know in case you didn't notice, but if you were trying to reply to someone, for some reason you replied to yourself.

  16. Post
    Author
    rumco

    @RKAddict101 Rothbard thought that WMDs are not libertarian as it's impossible to use such weapons against specific individuals (e.g. laser gun is OK but A-bomb is not). They are predominantly statist weapons. Having said that, I think that anyone trying to get or build a WMD would be boycotted, not cooperated with and pretty much outlawed from an ancap society. It may be legal as they would be just using their property without aggressing, but people would perceive it as a potential threat.

  17. Post
    Author
    RKAddict101

    @rumco That's a good answer, another thing that got me thinking of was how the State itself is untrustworthy when it comes to WMDs. The government is just an association of persons, just as those individuals can do wrong, so can individuals in an anarcho-capitalist society. Which then brings up your point, which actually could be a pro for anarcho-capitalist societies, in that people would oppose WMD creation.

  18. Post
    Author
    rumco

    @RKAddict101 Yes. The only difference is that the State is viewed as legitimate and a private criminal is not. That's why it (State agents) gets away with WMDs, taxes, etc.

  19. Post
    Author
  20. Post
    Author
  21. Post
    Author
    TacticalCitySlicker

    Being a gun luv'n, Iraq vet I find the economic theory of free market private contract security just fascinating. And if given the option would entrepreneur my own company.

  22. Post
    Author
    Constantin Thiopoulos

    very interesting. One question: if the protector acquires the assets of the protected by force, what do you do? You hire a second protector to protect you from the first one? And if the protectors join forces and control the protected what happens then?

  23. Post
    Author
  24. Post
    Author
    Matthew Alistair

    Try not to get too frustrated.. We are going to need you in the intellectual battlefield, pace yourself

  25. Post
    Author
  26. Post
    Author
  27. Post
    Author
    BenBurkley07

    sort of what we have now. one government that can take your goods when ever they want and how ever they want. The only thing is if we have smaller and smaller protection agencies there is less of a chance that one will be able to take over everything. But what hoppe is discussing is an alternative to what we have now. Currently, we have one protection agency…. The governement and its agents. There is no one to protect you from those people, and we have seen the effects of this situation.

  28. Post
    Author
    James Marshall

    This guy's book "Democracy the God that failed" is one of the best books I've ever read, and it completely changed my views of our government here in the US, from where I used to be a constitutionalist, conservative, limited government, Ron Paul supporter, and hard core free marketer to a RP supporter in his efforts to educate people, an anarcho capiltalist, and a sovereign person who looks at all governments as a band of thieves writ large, the US government included!!!

  29. Post
    Author
  30. Post
    Author
  31. Post
    Author
    warriorgal1

    That is why the Founding Fathers said, WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. But, WE THE PEOPLE are ASLEEP IN THE LIGHT. GOD SENT REVIVAL NOW.

  32. Post
    Author
  33. Post
    Author
    Set_Square_Jack

    I posted a link to this recently on a vid with a ton of leftists attacking libertarianism and the private law society. I challenged them to watch this, and then cite specific parts that did not stand to scrutiny.

    It's been two days, and needless to say, no one has taken up the challenge. Instead, everyone over there keeps making their vociferous, emotionally laden attacks, and I've been threatened with getting my YouTube account blocked ๐Ÿ˜‰

  34. Post
    Author
    Bruno Heringer

    I have a question, there is a moment in the video in which Hoppe says that in a private law society, security and police forces would be private, that said, if for example as he said, a security company started using its forces in a bad way, they would be stopped, but by who? The population and/or other security agencies?

    Also, wouldn't be a risk that some security agencies partnered so then they could control take control of a very dangerous issue as security or even use their forces together to coerce the population (sorry if this sounds like natural monopoly stuff)?

  35. Post
    Author
  36. Post
    Author
    IllICITGRYNE

    excellent analysis, however i disagree with his initial premise that conflict will not occur between crusoe and the other without scarcity. what about ideological motivations? perhaps they are of different religions? i do not agree that conflict is inherently tied to scarcity.

  37. Post
    Author
    Boulevardfree

    …and then along comes another random society with a hierarchical order and an internal military monopoly and just nukes the shotgun-wielding small-timers into the history books. It's a wonderful idea, but too oblivious to the fact that history is a dark, brutal place. The history of the world is the history of mafias competing for peasants. Always will be. The only alternative is having only one mafia globally, not competing with anyone, devoid of incentives to perform well for its sheep. Hope we never see that day.

  38. Post
    Author
  39. Post
    Author
  40. Post
    Author
    Fan de John Huston

    16:58 "The State must first produce beds such as Texas". The subtitles are priceless. Excellent presentation of ancapism nonetheless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *