Freedomain Radio

 

The advocate for limited government is forever declaring that “it is the rational self-interest of all individuals who value their freedoms and rights to have a government protecting them” and the anarchist counters “equally so for the alternative, the DRO.”

 

Sometimes the objections to the DRO model seem, at face value, to have merit and validity. I have comprised a small list of some main (and not so main) objections. I would be obliged if those more schooled in anarchist thought would care to articulate their counter arguments to the below list.

 

Objections raised for the DRO model:

 

1) Absence of objective and standardized laws prohibiting and punishing those that violate the rights and freedoms of all individuals.

2) Heterogeneity in the implementation of punishments and the delivery of laws between all of the DRO's.

3) Inequality of indivuals before the law, primarily and first off, based upon their geographical position and the type of DRO they belong to.

4) Absence of any legal framework to regulate or hold accountable any DRO as each of them will have different laws and punishments, granted some overlap.

5) No international military defense as provincial DRO's are too small to take on foreign armies (if they group together you effectively have a government anyway).

6) Escaped the challenge for drawing up a sketch for how a society could be integrated into anarchism in a peaceful process.

***

 

It is said that Stef has inadequately dealt with these basic objections and therefore he has failed to defend his anarchism for being the peaceful and co-operative society he makes out to be possible, under the umbrella of that political framework.

Stef, it is further asserted, at his convenience, lumps together in a package deal the libertarian argument for limited government (and those who appraise that kind of government) with that of the dictatorial government present in today's social democracies or split economy.

 

Today's example of government is not an adequate enough argument to refute the idea of government in its totality.

 

That is the gist of the argument(s).

 

Responses please. I have no doubt many have come across these kinds of objections time and again.

 

I'd like to help you if I can, let me know if you find this helpful (althought be forwarned, I not going to hold back my sarcasm in my responses... lately I've found most of the objections given just openly ridiculous, self-detonating, emotional defenses to these ideas. I don't hold any grudges against these arguments though... a lot of us are raised in state schools, and I don't know of many private schools teaching intellectual anarchism)

1) Absence of objective and standardized laws prohibiting and punishing those that violate the rights and freedoms of all individuals.

Because this is a concern for potential DRO customers, and since nobody is forced to use the services of any DRO at all, a DRO can only succeed if it successfuly overcomes these concerns to the satisfaction of it's customers. This can be related to a computer component company. The most succesful companies make parts that are easily interchangable and connectable to parts from other companies. While some companies operate by their own standards, those companies must justify this "lack of standardization" by creating standards that better serve the needs of their target consumers (eg.. Apple). DRO laws, while they cannot be completely objective, must be 'objectively' the most suitable for those that use them, and must be 'objectively' better than having no DRO coverage at all.

I don't think we need to expose the hipocracy of this question... Every country has different laws, sometimes excluding priveledged individuals within that very country. There is no tendency for standardization of legal systesm throughout the world (although there is a tendency to centralize legal power). There is no way to objectively value how 'objective' or 'standard' any law is by those to whom they apply.

2) Heterogeneity in the implementation of punishments and the delivery of laws between all of the DRO's.

I could just say "See above...", but this question thinks of another example of a non-violent solution. I can go to almost any ATM of almost any bank and withdraw money from my bank account. You wouldn't believe my shock at being able to go to an ATM in a FOREIGN COUNTRY, and withdraw money from my checking account in FOREIGN CURRENCY. Can any government legal system touch that level of universal service? You can't even have two legal systems in the same territory, and they don't even apply evenly within their spheres of influence!

3) Inequality of indivuals before the law, primarily and first off, based upon their geographical position and the type of DRO they belong to.

I'm trying to stay on topic as much as possible.. but I've reached my limit... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

4) Absence of any legal framework to regulate or hold accountable any DRO as each of them will have different laws and punishments, granted some overlap.

You're right, there is no legal framework to regulate DRO's, but there doesn't need to be one. Since DRO's are capitalist service firms, they are subjected to the "invisible iron fist" of profit and loss. DRO's have close to ZERO latittude when it comes to their treatment of their customers. If any business treats you, what you believe to be is, unfairly, you will not hesitate to kick them to the curb. There is no Supreme Court to crawl on your knees begging to *you can have that if you want of course, it might cost you more for the black robes treatment though.* When you drop service, they feel it immediately, IN THEIR WALLET. They don't get to go around screwing people left and right, they have financial targets to meet! Can you say the same thing about the United States Government? Does the "legal framework" of the constitution succeed in limiting government power? Small HAHA. Is there any system which can hold politicians instantly accountable for passing bad laws? NO. When Taco Bell demands that all it's customers pay in dimes only, do you make phone calls and march and hold signs? You stop going there, and their revenues fall immediately.

No international military defense as provincial DRO's are too small to take on foreign armies (if they group together you effectively have a government anyway).

Why does this matter? If there's no military, there's nobody that's pissed you're dropping bombs on their houses. Militaries don't defend anybody except their political leaders. Need proof? 19 young adults out-smarted the worlds most powerful military force and killed thousands. Just recently a jet airliner lost contact with ATC for over an hour. No military jets were scrambled for an intercept. This event occured post 9/11. If my credit card is stolen, and I report the theft in time, it is de-activated and I am re-embursed for any charges. Security companies work directly with their customers to satisfy their security concerns. If you think DRO's are too small, sign up with the biggest one. And a bunch of  DRO's does  not a government make, governments are criminal organizations, DRO's are not. That's like saying if you get a bunch of mall cops together, they become S.E.A.L.S.

6) Escaped the challenge for drawing up a sketch for how a society could be integrated into anarchism in a peaceful process.

Society already exists in a state of anarchism, some people are just really bad at it.... Stop supporting institutions of theft, murder, kidnapping, and subjigation and they lose their influence.

 

I actually had fun posting this, hopefull it's not too confrontational. Don't want anybody thinking I'm some sort of unhappy slave for advocating freedom.

Cheers!

If I wanted to start a business that endeavored to protect human rights in some way (that directly competed with the government), like a security force, arbitration committee, etc., would you send armed men to shut me down and seize my assets?

What if the jackboots were too busy beating down someone else's door to deal with me, would you do it yourself?

I think Mr. Capitalism answered this very well, but I'd like to supplement his first point:  even in the computer component industry, the one company who tried to go their own way (Apple) has had to begin to conform to the market standard to stay competitive.  As far as I understand it, they've adopted AGP, PCI, and Intel-based chips.  Also, while the RAM might fit different sockets, it still follows the DDR standard of other RAM chips.  This indicates the power of the market to influence the decisions of companies, including DROs.

Also, I suggest you try turning these arguments around on them.  For example, on the objective nature of the justice system, by what objective standard is our current justice system based on?  Objectively lettuce, spinach, tobacco, coca, poppies, and marijuana are just various types of plants, yet somehow they are treated differently by the legal system.  What's the standard?  Anything they answer with will be a fundamentally subjective distinction such as, "such-and-such are more harmful than such-and-such, so they are illegal."  "More harmful" can be so broadly interpretted and is based on the method and object of comparison, it cannot be considered an objective standard.

 

everyone, keep in mind - I am presenting these arguments, not advocating them.

Hey,

 

I think MrCapitalism sums it in his final statement.

 

“Society already exists in a state of anarchism, some people are just really bad at it.... Stop supporting institutions of theft, murder, kidnapping, and subjigation[sic] and they lose their influence.”

 

I’ve never quite comprehended why even the most perfect argument as to the immorality or “against nature”-ness of some act suddenly validates the status quo (of all 190-odd governments simultaneously). It is likely because people don’t question why there should be state or laws, but regardless, it’s quite an erratic jump to make, to state that Government is a part of human nature.

 

That is, because in reality as well all know, it isn’t natural. It is simply the predominant system that has beaten down all competition, used the power of existing states, and gains all its power from a time in which tribalism meant that Government could easily arise from one man with the largest weapon. Half a millennia ago, large factions of Monarchist families still fought to become the state. Today, when even religion can’t convince people of their servitude to Feudal masters, and without wanting to rely on the idea that we are somehow only now ready for anarchism, definitely far more rational in our approaches to social life; it’s near impossible for this situation to arise again.

 

And so, government is, despite the very definitions being fixed against me, anarchistic. Government is already the DRO with the most power, which by all understandings of competition, must make it worse at providing services. Yet, no one here has been murdered by their neighbours? Do we, or those we debate, honestly believe that their friends and family would turn on them and kill them? Would communities, which manage to do so much together without the government, which care about each do anything but consolidate their relationships even more?

 

How can a DRO truly be worse? Inequality before the law; I doubt it. The only areas where rule of law has ever mattered has been true crime and in state matters. No DRO will differ from others in making violent crime illegal, and state matters become irrelevant without a state. I personally, would go for a DRO that provided some form of trial by judge (3 judges if my fantasies are fulfilled) in decision making processes. If other people seek this, and consider it their “right”, unlike now, they can make the move in a 20 minute phone call!

 

As long as we have the power to deny them money, I don’t even have a problem with a congress of the DRO’s. If they want to get together to standardise Fundamental “Law”, great! The better to be free with. If some DRO votes in some way I dislike, I simply withhold my money immediately. In this great democracy, I have to wait 4 or 5 years to be given the opportunity to vote. It’s a joke, if you consider Government a DRO, which it is, then not an argument against Anarchism can hold. Perhaps one would argue that freedom is not an intrinsic right, and therefore these immediate choices don’t really matter. However, I ask again, in what way is statism a part of human nature? And therefore, in what way does an argument against freedom validate a monopoly on violence as being the best way forward? The same can be said of all non-Austrian, and non-Capitalistic anarchists, who don’t simply want to keep to themselves. Who implements your declaration on property on freedom, and how is that not just a monopoly over DRO’s?

 

Thanks,

 

James

 

 Just to put on my Devil's Advocate costume again, it could be argued thus: Utopianism- ignoring that DROs are implemented by people, as well as ignoring the central fact that 'justice' is unique from the product standardization examples in that people hold their choice as a moral issue, and want it applied universally.

As zealous as 'Apple' and other product fans are - they don't really advocate their product choice be applied to everyone. Imagine if Apple were Sharia law, Linux were objective law based on individual rights, Microsoft were the status quo including bans on victimless crimes, etc. - and see how well *that* competitive market would work.

Agalloch:

 

I think MrCapitalism sums it in his final statement.

 “Society already exists in a state of anarchism, some people are just really bad at it.... Stop supporting institutions of theft, murder, kidnapping, and subjigation[sic] and they lose their influence.”

 

Government is already the DRO with the most power,

if you consider Government a DRO, which it is, then not an argument against Anarchism can hold.  

I am trying to better understand the DRO concept. Are the above views accepted by most on this board?  

A DRO isn't a government.

Memberhip with a DRO is recommended but not obligatory.

Many private businesses presently provide services which a DRO would provide or outsource to other firms such as arbitration, insurance, security, and reputation ratings.

Alan Chapman:

A DRO isn't a government.

Memberhip with a DRO is recommended but not obligatory.

Many private businesses presently provide services which a DRO would provide or outsource to other firms such as arbitration, insurance, security, and reputation ratings.

 

 Right, because if "government is already the DRO with the most power" then it can be emperically shown that DRO's don't work - since history shows an incremental consolidation of power by a minority of individuals (government=DRO) to dominate a majority of individuals through various physical and non-physical means. 

But you claim a DRO is not a government entity, so we will treat it as such. This being the case, I still have the same concern that the evolution of the DRO's will lead to the same consolidation and abuse of power. I know that stefan addressed this in his earlier podcasts (I have only listened to the first 40 or so) but I didn't find the response to be satisfactory. He uses the analogy of Microsoft (or some other large corporation) being a dominant force in the free-market, but none of us fear jack-booted thugs from Microsoft coming to knock down our doors. I disagree with this on two levels... 1. We (Americans) live in a cryptic fascists state and I wouldn't be suprised if some hacker has seriously pissed of Microsoft and paid the consequences through government enforcement. 2. The Ideal DRO is so much more than a vertically integrated corporation. Although Microsoft might produce products for various markets, you don't expect them to provide car insurance. The DRO on the other hand will have Mega-horizontal-integration, and this just seems like a real advantage for one corporation or several corporations to incrementally consolidate power and create a monopoly/monarchy or oligopoly/oligarchy. I will wait to hear some others thoughts on this before I go on.

In response to your second point... Obviously for a free society to exist with DRO's you couldn't require that everyone be part of a DRO. Although, this seems like saying, "you don't have to pay income taxes or participate on any level with the American Government, but you can still live inside of its borders." Well, unless you are into the fringe mad-max on the run lifestyle, you are going to be forced to participate like every other citizen. I feel this is a fair analogy, since the DRO's real power is its ability to cut off necessary goods from those whom are deemed "offenders" and subsequently forcing them to make right what they have done wrong.

Right now (based on the limited knowledge I have of the DRO concept) it seems to me that if the DRO were to eliminate and replace our current governments, we would still face the problem of having abstract entities providing us with governance - and it seems that the natural progression of the DRO's would be toward a more efficient consolidated DRO monopoly.

Let me know what you think.             

 

Governments are supported by mass delusion, credulity, and ignorance. Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and Amazon.com are not.

A DRO does nothing but extend the division of labor. It does what we, as individuals, already do.

A DRO acts defensively. It is not an agency of offense. A person could not hire a DRO to compel his neighbor to brush his teeth and eat his vegetables.

Saying that a person would be "forced" to participate in a DRO is no different that saying that he is "forced" to ring my doorbell rather than just letting himself in without first asking permission.

Excessive vertical integration is economically infeasable for many reasons, not the least of which are the inefficiencies inherent in bureaucracy and the ensuing calculation problem as a firm expands.

Monopoly and cartelization flourish only under mercantilism because politically-connected firms which benefit from corporate welfare and protectionism tend to grow larger than they otherwise would because they are insulated from moral hazard, and thus acquire the economies of scale needed to absorb the costs of taxation and regulation, whereas other firms do not.

For 1-3 Costumary law tends to be homogenious when homogeneity is called for and hetergenious when heterogeneity is called for. For further reference see "The Obviousness of anarchy" John Hansas. The  UCC decended from the costumary lex mercentoria is one of the most universally applied and adhered to set of laws in the known universe. In the West every mining camp had its own code suited to the unique challenges of that camp.

For 3. Also equality before the law is a nonsense term. Even every current court is going to have it's own fluctuations, implementation of rules, and jury pool. There are noticable fluctuation from state to state, but this tends to be praised even by libertarians rather than denounced because it allows local adaptation to what is most conducive to the practice of justice in that case.

For 4. Any court may hold an appeal against the decision by any other court.  An independent arbiter is an essential feature of law, and the act of appointing one arbiter as final and all arbiters in a heiarchy under it is a violation of this principle since it means disputes with the named final arbiter cannot be heard before and independent arbiter and appeals will not be nuetral in regards to the judging the judge.  All state systems provide a sheild for thier judges against liability for thier decisions. DRO's to maintain peace between one another cannot claim the same sheild. All in all it provides more protection against arbitrary and unjust decision than any current statist system.

As for 5, How is every DRO in an area setting aside 10% for maintaining fixed defense structures and weapon R&D the same as a government? It's a ridiculous claim. In addition it would be widely recongzed that an invasion of one small free geographic region would put others at risk. Even without a minimal amount set aside to maintianing radar and missile system, insurance markets would be more than able to raise a sufficient degree of funds. Currently insurance markets (before tapping into national and international re-insurance markets) could raise 60 Billion dollars liquid immediately, and 350 billion as they are able to sell off less liquid assets. In a future society, without the wealth drain of nonsensical and protectionist regulations and with more relliance on insurance markets, these figures may well double, triple or quadruple.

Alan Chapman:

Governments are supported by mass delusion, credulity, and ignorance. Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and Amazon.com are not.

A DRO does nothing but extend the division of labor. It does what we, as individuals, already do.

A DRO acts defensively. It is not an agency of offense. A person could not hire a DRO to compel his neighbor to brush his teeth and eat his vegetables.

Saying that a person would be "forced" to participate in a DRO is no different that saying that he is "forced" to ring my doorbell rather than just letting himself in without first asking permission.

Excessive vertical integration is economically infeasable for many reasons, not the least of which are the inefficiencies inherent in bureaucracy and the ensuing calculation problem as a firm expands.

Monopoly and cartelization flourish only under mercantilism because politically-connected firms which benefit from corporate welfare and protectionism tend to grow larger than they otherwise would because they are insulated from moral hazard, and thus acquire the economies of scale needed to absorb the costs of taxation and regulation, whereas other firms do not.

 

You are too kind to the Corporations mentioned. Governments engage in propaganda creating mass delusion and they have benefited from a culture of credulity and ignorance, I agree. The corporations you mention are no different. (a priori) Advertising is propaganda. Do not these corporations also benefit from the credulous and ignorant consumer. Wal-Mart is the ultimate third-world slave driver, that sells toys with toxic chemicals, and has benefited greatly from the domestic and foreign economic and trade policies of the US government; policies that have helped the global corporation and hurt the citizen/consumer... People are governed in ignorance as much as they shop in ignorance. I understand that everyone on here is a free-market capitalist, but if you don't understand the fascistic relationship between the government and the corporation then we will be unable to come to an agreement.

"A DRO... extend(s) the division of labor." I agree, that's what is sounds like it does.

Microsoft was acting defensively in my thought experiment, they were hacked.

Yes you are forced to ring my doorbell before you come in. Via non-physical factors and physical. Non-physical; i.e. social norms dictate that you would be impolite if you just walked in... and nobody wants to have a reputation in the community as being impolite. Physical being my door is locked and if you want me to unlock it you must first ring my doorbell. The point is you don't have to ring my doorbell, but if I am the only house for 100 miles and it is -30 degrees and you are naked and you value your life, you will be forced to ring my doorbell.

Excessive (horizontal?) integration is infeasable in a true free-market scenario. What I have realized is that I am not necessarily opposed to the DRO, but I don't buy the perpetual existence of a free-market; a necessary condition for the DRO system. If we were able to start from scratch we would possibly be able to avoid any sort of market corruption for some time, but even then I forsee rampant corruption in due time and therefore the end of the true DRO system, and the consolidation of power and the monopolization of the DRO entities.

"monopoly and cartelization blah blah blah...", sounds correct. Like I said I just don't see a corrupt-free free-market perpetually existing and supporting the DRO system.

 

 Hey,

Most likely, but looking at this post, I worded it terribly. I didn't mean DRO as in one of the organisations envisaged here, but in the most generic sense, as an organisation which puts itself to use in the resolution of dispute. So don't look to this to learn about the DRO, it was a point about how we support Governments in an anarchistic fashion, by the very nature of the Universe. There is no physical law guaranteeing government it's position, and no natural law by which it's law derives application.

Thanks,

James

Victor Pross:

 Just to put on my Devil's Advocate costume again, it could be argued thus: Utopianism- ignoring that DROs are implemented by people, as well as ignoring the central fact that 'justice' is unique from the product standardization examples in that people hold their choice as a moral issue, and want it applied universally.

As zealous as 'Apple' and other product fans are - they don't really advocate their product choice be applied to everyone. Imagine if Apple were Sharia law, Linux were objective law based on individual rights, Microsoft were the status quo including bans on victimless crimes, etc. - and see how well *that* competitive market would work.

People do want their standards of justice applied universally.  They do not however seem to be willing to spend large amounts of money to force the issue.  Well not their own money anyway.  People who wish their DROs to impose standards on people who don't like them will have to pay extra or go without.  Over time injustices that cost money tend to decrease.  This is why governments tend to increase injustices, because they reassign costs away from the ones that cause them.