Rebutting the Absurdities
by Lazarus Long
In various message areas, I have seen some people using absurdities as a basis for refuting libertarian and anarcho-capitalist arguments. In the interest of
clarification, I will take some of the common questions and strawmen used
by the other side and show how a solution to their posited position would
evolve.
1. How would you get justice in a private court, if the court was paid for
by the opposing side?
I could ask the same question.... how does one win a case against the
government when they provide the prosecutor and the judge?
Most disputes would be settled using arbitration, where both parties
would present their case to an independent arbitrator, who would collect
a fee for service from both parties. Certainly one side could renege on
the agreement, but only for a limited time as his reputation would
become tainted and people would be hesitant to deal with that person.
Would you sign a contract with a known deadbeat?
2. How about protection of property?
If you sign with a protection agency, you would receive from service.
This service could be passive defense, such as alarms and locks or it
could be a reactive service that would have you providing your own
passive defenses while they concentrate on apprehension of criminals.
You would have to shop around and decide what would suit your pocketbook
and your needs.
3. What if two protective services where in conflict? If one arrested a
client of another agency?
Protective services would, in the interest of economic health and
smoother relations, enter into contractual agreements with competing
agencies specifying which court would be acceptable to each and agree to
abide by the ruling of that court.
4. What would keep the protective services from becoming corrupt and overly
aggressive?
The companies that would insure your property would soon put economic
pressure to bear on any inept or corrupt protection agency. It is in
their interests and yours, to keep their payouts to a minimum. If a
protection agency A has a higher loss record than agency B, insurance
companies would soon either raise the premiums of those who dealt with
agency A or refuse outright to insure property protected by A.
An agency that is aggressive and causes a lot of damage and injury would
find itself spending more time and money than it makes defending itself
in court.
5. Wouldn't the poor receive less protection?
Possibly, but that is also the case in the state funded system that we
have now. It is an innocent person who believes that the poorest
neighbourhood in a town receives the same level of protection as does
the high income part of town.
6. How would private roads work?
A company or cooperative that owned a road would charge a fee for use,
just as we pay a fee for use today(only today it is hidden with the
other fees in taxation).
A private firm could charge a fixed fee for monthly or yearly usage,
possibly even charging an off-peak fee for those who use it in offhours.
With todays technology, it wouldn't be difficult to put a transponder in
cars that would signal a computer that would log time and distance of
trace. In a case like that, you would be billed weekly or monthly. Those
who enter the road system from another corporation's road network, might
pay a flat fee upon access, or if a frequent user, say from a
neigbouring road net, might have an aggreement between his local
provider and the neigbouring system to facilitate the exchange of road
usage.
7. What if the road owner wouldn't let you drive on the road?
It would be unlikely that a road owner would do this. He is, after all,
an entrepeneur who is trying to make a living off the the proceeds of
the road. Owning and paying the cost of maintaining a road and turning
away customers would be cutting his own throat. If he tried to extort
higher fees from an individual than he charges on a regular basis, he
might be liable in a court.. depending on the laws of that community.
8. The problem of pollution is commonly raised by those who question
libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.
A major reason that pollution is so prevalent today is that air and
ocean are considered ownerless. "Why not adopt a principle that those who
live, say alongside a river, had a property right in the river itself
and that those who lower the value of the river to them by polluting it
without consent, is liable to suit. Some things, such as air, are
extraordinarly difficult to deal with in this manner. Consider the
consequence of absolute property rights by each landholder above his
head. If I smoked a cigarette, some tiny amount of smoke will eventually
spread very far."(David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom pg 102). A
solution to this problem would be to allow injured parties to initiate
class action suits against the polluter.
9. A difficult question to answer for libertarians has been National
Defense. If the Government doesn't pay for it, who will.
The same people who pay for it now would pay for it in a libertarian
society; The citizens of the country.
One solution would be the development of local defense organisations
(militias). These would be funded from within the community. However, to
provide the "big ticket items" such as Fighter-bombers, Armoured
vehicles and such, there would have to be something else than the
voluntary contributions of a community. Perhaps corporations, who would
desire a stable country to operate their businesses in would contribute
to a national organisation, the funds with which to purchase and operate
the aircraft, ships and heavy artillery and armour. On the other hand,
the citizens of the land may decide that they would be willing to pay a
set fee per person to a national organisation or government that would
organise and equip a military force.
Or as suggested by Friedman, since millions are spent by people on
charities on an annual basis, why not fund our national forces on a
charitable basis. In any case, this group would be supplemented by the
locally trained and equipped militia. The local militias could be
totally voluntary forces paid only a stipend for equipment maintenance
or they could be formed around a cadre of professionals.
10. What would prevent this national organisation from taking over and
installing a military dictatorship?
We already have a group of armed men equipped with aircraft and ships
and they have yet to show any signs of wanting to overthrow the
government, despite being the targets of cutbacks and political
opportunism.
Why would this change in the future?
A brief answer is that people act according to what they perceive as
right, proper and practical. The restraints which prevent a military
coup are essentially restraints interior to the men with guns.
11. How will the poor receive an education?
One solution could be to allow parents to direct the funds to schools
of their own choice. Certainly a school in a poorer section of town
would not have the cash input that a school in a higher income area
would, but would that mean that the school would be bereft of good
teachers?
Throwing money at education has never been shown to be effective in
raising the quality of education. Some private, church run schools have
better records for producing scholars than do many of our state funded
schools.
If local firms, realising that having better educated workers
would be beneficial to their business, contributed by way of
scholarships and grants, the schools would be able to make up the
difference in tuition.
The parents could also contribute to the local school by volunteering
for secretarial chores, library and other tasks.
|