I was pretty drunk when I read this the first time and didn't want to make an ass of myself trying to answer it, though I may still do that ;)

So I like to simplify things and I think I can summarize your statement into the fact the society needs a way to punish people who don't have integrity. This is where things get complicated. So, you sign a contract with Bob to fix his roof for $1,000. You both use the same DRO who checks your credibility and charges each of you a fee based on the risk of the contract, as determined by the DRO. You both agree and sign the contract. Bob gives you a thousand dollars and you leave town. Bob tells his DRO who after a really short investigation, reimburses Bob his $1,000. Now the DRO updates your file in a database that it shares with other DRO's that you broke a legitimate contract. Say goodbye to ever getting a DRO to insure anything you say anymore. Try taking that $1,000 and trying to buy a hotel room in the next town. If I owned a hotel and you wanted a room I'd either take a deposit in case you broke something or I would want a credit card. The second you gave me that credit card I'd know that you broke a contract and wouldn't rent you a room. You wouldn't be able to get a job anywhere without a credit check. You go to the gas station to fill up your tank, unfortunately for you that gas station uses the same DRO that you used to and in their contract with that DRO they can't do business with anyone who broke a contract with them. No gas for you.

Your life turns into an economic hell.

Satisfied?

Isn't that funny? We think we need the government for the courts, but when was the last time you used one? It costs so much and takes so much time that it is almost never worth it. In fact most disputes get resolved by a third party the moment someone even mentions going to court. Courts are only effective as a threat, not as an actual establishment.

But they have more credit, to meet their end of the contract, on top of that there would be competing DRO's and you could put a clause that if you and your DRO get into a dispute you can use this third DRO to mediate it, one that you picked because you are so paranoid and think everyone is out to break their contracts.

Then you have the credit rating agencies which monitor who breaks their contracts and gives them a score. The first person who broke their contract has his score reduced based on how extreme it was, making it difficult for him to hire DRO's in the future until he rectifies his bad credit. Even an individual could make an appeal to the credit agency with the case that the DRO he originally signed up with is corrupt or lying or breaking the contract and get the DRO's credit rating score lowered, which is extremely important to them because that is what their business is based on.

All of this reduces risk to an extremely small number. Risk will always exist, and it is about shifting it. Shifting it to a smaller number.

Hi Jan,

There are most certainly bad apples, and I would even go on to say that even the good apples have a few bad spots on them. We all make those little mistakes that limit our productivity and hurt us in the long run, though some make less than others.

Anarchy isn't a utopia, and it won't end all instances of the initiation of force. But it is a much better system than forcing people to pay for the bad apples and pay for the mistakes of others.

I don't propose an immediate flip of the switch no government. I think we should build an anarchist foundation and let private industry run the government out of business. Allow privatization of the different proponents of government and let them show that the job either doesn't need to be done, or that they can do it better.

I'm not sure what your concerns specifically are about pharmacy's and I'm not sure I have an answer if I did know, but if you want to express some more direct points I could try.

You could very easily hire a company to act as a fire station. I know there are some areas where you buy fire insurance, where not only does the company reimburse you for your lost possessions should the fire be deemed an accident, but they would also have a fire crew on hand to extinguish the flames, because the more stuff they stop from burning, the less they will have to pay out.

Valid point. Every once in awhile I worry deeply about the spread of Islam, and how to prevent it. What most people would do when faced with that task is use government force to prevent it from spreading into our borders. But this fails on multiple levels, the first of which is infringing on citizens who are already Islamic. We can't force them to stop praying or speaking about it, We can't limit their economic growth based on it, and if they do spread, they will outvote us. The constitution is a magnificently written document about how to run a country, but it isn't an enforcer. We all have seen it being chipped away by one government extension after another. One small change here and there that most don't notice or care.

But in an Anarchy? It is very easy to economically distance yourself from people you disagree with.

If you are willing to use force to suppress people, you are only building an army that they can use to suppress you once they vote it away from you.

Anarchy is the best quarantine. If the problem is in fact a personal moral failure, than when that individual makes a mistake he will be the one to suffer, and not pass the consequences of his failings on to the public or the community or the shareholders.

Man is predisposed to form governments because he learned early on that his chance of survival is increased when he works in groups.

yes

See my initial comments. This is NOT theory. Read any significant contract you signed for a mortgage or credit or a car loan. Chances are that you agreed to a DRO. In business, this is standard. No one wants to go to court.

Thanks! I am a Meyer-Briggs ENTJ: I can argue any side of any issue. It helps to know the opposition.

I agree about Bill Clinton. He was only worse than John Kennedy: more failures; fewer achievements. It is not just that we all err. It is that power corrupts. So, those who are drawn to power are drawn to immorality. We see this in the private sector where the inventor engineer is steamrollered by the office politician.

So, I am not sure that we have an institutional solution, no special social system will solve the problem of personal moral failure. Some arrangements cater to it; others quarantine it.

About 20% of the apples... give or take... but the range of actual badness goes from sloth to murder with more at the easy side of the curve and fewer at the the bizarre limit.

In business we have auditable controls. In government, we have laws.

Allow me to clarify. Generally we do not know "most people": we only know ourselves. It is a standard psychological screen to ask, "True or False: Most people are basically honest." If you are, you think most people are, too. That said, any police chief will give you an easy figure that 80% of your problems come from 20% of your addresses in any neighborhood. So, "most" people -80%- in the absence of what we call government would live their lives as they do now anyway. My point was only that if government just evaporated, we would have chaos. We have government everywhere today because people want it. Same with religion. If people woke up tomorrow and found all the churches, synagogues, and mosques gone, they would KNOW the Devil did it and there would be a weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth and this would become The End of Time. But... as religion continues to lose ground, more and more people identify with atheism, or agnosticism or no preference, perhaps up to 20% of Americans. So, eventually...

And so too with government.

Here and now, as I said, I point to Multinational Corporations. The MNCs live and act in world of anarcho-capitalism because they are above most national governments, they shop for the laws they want for their contracts, they have their own security forces, and they arbitrate when they have honest disagreements, and they do not shoot it out with their market rivals.

So, yes, I agree with you in that sense that "most" people will eventually live without government.

When you say: ".... nce you have one person using force to get their way and has any success at it, then you will see others copy the strategy or align ..." you are describing government, or one origin or ontology for it. Any doctrinaire anarchist will claim (with some justification) that the government is just the gang big enough to keep the other gangs out.

And so it was, until 1776. Then, from a blank slate, we created a new social contract. Ideas matter.

yes

Government is necessary to create and maintain stable civil relationships.

Here's what you'll find in any public policy text book regarding when it appropriate for government to provide a good/service:: if the consumption of a desired good/service cannot be withheld from a member of a society (ie. through a pricing system. Ex. the common defense, police services, etc).

If a good/service can be denied to a person, for example, who is not willing to trade or pay for it, then this is a good/service the private sector should provide.

And this is at the heart of most economic and social financing problems.

yes

Without government, we would exist in a village society. Government, with checks and balances, allows for efficiency the way big business does. The problem is that government should be responsive to inefficiencies and not just through the ballot box.

a novel. it's been in the back of my mind for almost two years now, but I decided to put it off to write another one + start a children's series. in the middle of that, I began to edit others people's books, so my own writing has been slowed. if I'm not analyzing the financials for our small business, I'm writing, editing, and now reading Gulch posts to learn and get more ideas. these types of exercises are very helpful. my husband and I had a long conversation about anarchism because of this post. I'll see if I can convince him to post his own thoughts later in the day.

the insurance company will want surety as well.
therefore, the risks assessed might be too risky for the company to take on. Even if they took it on-now you have to meet THEIR contract. Just shifting risk does not solve the problem

Well said and for some one who isn't an anarchist you do a good job of promoting it. If I read that correctly the one missing piece is a fundamental lack of rational morality among individuals. What that means is a portion of the population is corrupt, a minority. Wouldn't these immoral people be the ones who would want government power the most? In fact looking at the morals of a number of politicians you can see that those who have risen to power are highly immoral.

Think about this: Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, cheated on his wife with a girl who was drastically younger than him and had about the polar opposite amount of power, she was an intern. His moral compass which guided the nation abused his position for adultery. That's not even the worst part. How many people met him, worked with him, supported him and helped him rise to the highest office. And not one of them could detect his personality well enough to think that he was capable of this act? Either they knew, and didn't care, or they didn't and any one who is good at lying can control National policies.