| | "Ergo, there is nothing wrong with competing agencies resolving conflicts based on differing codes." Right, because when Guido and " Sammy the butcher" and the rest of the mafia who started their protection agency resolve conflicts by simply killing off their competition, there's really nothing wrong with that.
The argument essentially amounts to:
"Anarchy is bad because there would be mafias that violated peoples rights."
1.) Mafias generally profit by dealing in black market goods and services such as drugs, gambling, etc. These are items which even minarchists agree should be perfectly legal. So I find it unlikely that mafias as we know them would prosper.
2.) One way that mafias retain power is through bribery of the police and other government officials. I believe competing agencies would provide an incentive for the good to expose the bad (perhaps a weak argument, however...)
3.) 1 & 2 are really besides the point, which is that this "mafia" is not a figment of your imagination, but rather a real concept, that has existed as a real entity within the context of a constitutionally limited monopoly government.
You ignore that mafia run "protection" agencies have existed and continue to exist despite the presence of a government. Government or no, they may always exist.
It's precisely because the majority of all men don't naturally make war with each other, that having a government protect our rights made so much sense. If most men don't want war -- but some (i.e., the criminal minority) do -- then 'proper' government is the solution to this problem of the Tragedy of the Common Man.
I would have to agree with the first part of this, but not the conclusion. It would seem that underlying all of the minarchist arguments is the premise that man is inherently evil and wicked, and must therefore be ruled.
I believe
It's precisely because the majority of all men don't naturally make war with each other, that having a free market in protection and adjudication would not result in a Hobbesian war.
To touch on something Steve said, I agree with him when he says:
No one could object to a government that only has rules/laws that prohibit the violation of individual rights while still claiming to be in favor of individual rights.
This is true, but then again, in Steve's own words:
If you point at any government on earth today you will see flagrant examples of violating the purpose of government as I've described it - but that doesn't invalidate the need - it just says we aren't there yet.
I believe MEM already said it best when he said:
If "the" government had "a" just legal system, there would be no discussion. There would be no anarchists.
Steve also asked:
You don't present an explanation of why a government based solely upon rules against the initiation of force would be wrong.
You didn't reply to my statement as to why such a government would be objected to by someone who recognizes individual rights.
The answer is, it wouldn't and, it wouldn't.
|
|
