“Without question, the legal system is the one facet of society that supposedly requires State provision. Even such champions of laissez-faire as Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises believed a government must exist to protect private property and define the “rules of the game.” However, their arguments focused on the necessity of law itself. They simply assumed that the market is incapable of defining and protecting property rights. They were wrong. I argue that the elimination of the State will not lead to lawless chaos. Voluntary institutions will emerge to effectively and peacefully resolve the disputes arising in everyday life.”
–Robert P. Murphy, Chaos Theory
Follow Circle Bastiat
I agree, Mr. Murphy, that the elimination of the state will not lead to chaos, but it will lead to the elimination of the “the rule of law,” (and–praise God–lawyers). No doubt voluntary institutions will emerge to effectively and peacefully resolve disputes arising in everyday life, but they will not be dependent on “the rule of law.” The rule of law, by which some men rule others, may also be referred to as man-made laws. Such laws, are derived from appendages of states–legislatures, parliaments or dictators. They require enFORCEment by the state. Such force, which I equate with violence, is incompatible with peace.
The laws that survive the demise of the state will be the laws of God, laws of nature, economic laws, and those laws discovered by physical sciences. Such laws are distinct from man-made laws in that they do not require the state to enforce them. No state is necessary; no force is required. Any strictures they impose impact only lawbreakers without anyone having to enforce.
Regarding the necessity of the state, Mises was demonstrably wrong. He described the state as “the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion…that has the monopoly of violent action…for the preservation of peaceful human relations” The flaw in Mises logic on this one point is easily recognized. As James Allen put it paraphrasing Jesus, “Nothing comes from corn but corn, nothing from nettles but nettles.” It is, I think, axiomatic that violence cannot produce peace, the absence of violence.. Rather violence begets only more violence. To eliminate violence, the violent state must be eliminated that peace may prevail.
The incentive to commit violent acts is reduced through the threat of violent coercion. Those who lack the moral compass that compels them to refrain from murder require coercion and/or violence to remain compliant. Their opportunity cost of refraining from murder encourages them to respond to their self interest of living and they are conditioned to remain compliant. Humans are inherently violent and will not stand for a state that lacks the ability to uphold laws without the essence of Hammurabi’s code.
The violent reaction also gives the illusion of the victims being served justice which gives them, in turn, psychological closure and defuses individual retaliation, which can lead to more violence. We, as humans, cannot deny our animal instincts simply because we live in a state that does not apply coercion.
How can murder be resolved peacefully without coercion? Is the offender expelled from the community? Isn’t that coercion? How can the free market equally protect all citizens (regardless of property and personal investment) from an invading army? How can contractual obligations be upheld without rule of law? Peace will not prevail when citizens realize the state is docile and can apply no force to violent offenders. I respect the notion of a free market economy but coercion in some cases cannot be avoided. We need rule of law, attorneys that uphold and interpret the law, and a police and military that universally protects all its citizens so that they feel safe to practice free trade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVrCKk45cZQ&feature=plcp
The argument that there are some people incapable of living peacefully with others without the Sword of Damocles hanging over their head is not a convincing one to use to justify putting that Sword over the head of everyone.
There are two reasons for this:
First, the vast majority of people conduct themselves day in and day out peacefully. Some few knowingly engage in coercive, destructive, and criminal actions against others, while another tiny fraction respond to random circumstances with violence (such as road rage) without criminal intent.
Threatening and robbing the first group because of the other two is insane. That’s the very group who have done no harm, yet are punished through regulation and taxation as if they themselves had done something wrong.
Criminals respond to incentives. Removing the legal restrictions on self defense puts that capable threat you assume occurs with Government back into the hands of individuals, where it is exceptionally well placed. A centralized government cannot answer a distributed threat, only a distributed defense can, and that is why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The latter will always exist, simply because human beings are not atoms. They act and choose to act, even sometimes irrationally, and creating a “rational threat” does nothing to effect irrational behaviors. The Darwin Awards amply demonstrate this.
Second, you are assuming that a government is benevolent. That it “universally protects all its citizens so that they feel safe to practice free trade.”
If you actually believe the institution of government is, or stays, benevolent, then either you believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy, or you are simply too blind to history and reality to be bothered with.
Mr. Murphy, I agree with Mises and Friedman, and disagree with you and Rothbard. I too believe that government “must exist to protect private property and define the rules of the game.” I fear that your faith in free markets as the one size fits all solution to right all of society’s wrongs is as dangerous to society as the statist’s unquestioning faith in the state. Why? For two primary reasons: (1) I believe as Nozick did that the provision of law enforcement services tends toward monopoly, and that the state will emerge nonetheless; and (2) A monopoly such as this can and will easily violate the harmony of interests (i.e. what’s good for the individual is good for society as a whole) upon which free markets depend. In this case, what is good for the monopoly of force (greater profits from law enforcement services, which ultimately result from more crime) is bad for society (more crime, more laws to comply with, and higher costs of law enforcement). I find it incredibly naive for you to think that the customer can possibly be in charge in this anarcho-capitalist situation. As Mises pointed out, ultimately that is what makes and keeps markets free — the customer and not the producer is in charge. Where abundance is the goal, free markets are the solution. But where scarcity (i.e. scarcity of crime and the laws and law enforcement services necessary to contain crime) is the goal, free markets are not the solution. I believe Mr. Murphy that you, like the statists, are worshipping a false god. The only difference between you and them is the god you choose to worship, and the devil you choose to condemn.
Madison famously said that government is a “necessary evil.” Mises went one step further, removing “evil” from the description, leaving us with “necessary.” I believe that Madison’s formula for containing leviathan was sound — a federal government limited to specifically enumerated powers, a system of checks and balances within and outside of it, and limited ability to fund itself. The problem is not in government itself, but that we as a people have forgotten and no longer understand the critical importance of the system that Madison designed, and our responsibility to defend it. It has been effectively stuffed in the dust bin of history by the statists that permeate in government. As Tom Paine famously wrote about the price of freedom in American Crisis I — “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.” There are no shortcut solutions to this problem Mr. Murphy. The price of freedom, if we want it, is an enlightened and courageous people, and eternal vigilance.