WAR!!!

[Adam_Min_Hayeshuv]

Let us assume that we had successfully established a free society (Yey!).

Let us further assume that, as we anticipate, personal protection services are provided by Private Defence Agencies (PDAs) each proposing its own private set of laws

while conflicts between PDAs are resolved by mutually agreed upon arbitration agencies.

 

My question is whether wars would be possible under this regime

and if so, is it good or bad? 

 

More concretely, I have several specific scenarios in mind,

I ask whether they are likely to happen & if so whether this is a flaw in the anarcho-capitalist vision which requires a remedy?

 

The scenarios:

1. NOT POPULAR IS NOT FUN: Customer C of PDA P is a sceintist which conducts his experiments on monkeys

that he rears for this purpose in his private property.

His studies attract negative publicity from animal rights activists and are presented to the public as

 atrocious and superfluous.

Public opinion is swayed against him and 10% of the customers of P petition it to end its business relations with C,

As a result, PDA P now considers C as a liabilty rather than an asset, updates its laws to forbade such activities 

& requires customer C to conform to the updated law or give up her services.

Customer C considers this to be his life's work and refuses to stop his research

he prefers to hire the services of another protection agency but no serious agency agrees to accept him

due to his unpopularity.

The road is now open for animal rights activists to organise together & launch an act of aggression against the unpopular sceintist.

In their rage, they kill the scientist & his family (to minimise the chance of future attributions against them) & divide all his property among them.

2. SUBJECT THE SECT: An indian sect from its own PDA, denoted A, in order to live peacefully under their own laws.

PDA B, knowing that A's customers will never join it

utilise its military advantage to impose a one sided agreement between A & B, which requires PDA A to pay PDA B an annual fee and forces A's customers to utilise agency B's courts in any dispute with B's customers.

3. FAR FROM THE EYE, FAR FROM THE HEART: Suppose that an agency in a desolate spot, converts to a rouge mode of operation (North Korea style),

as the economic potential is small and as long as it doesn't provoke any major PDA she might be allowed to exist for a very long time as not enough individuals might be interested in funding liberation wars against it.

In fact she might even agree not to compete with the other major PDAs and in return they might outlaw funding war operations against it.

4. DIVIDE & CONQUER: Suppose that PDAs are geographically well localized, than a rouge agency might be able to divide & conquer its enemies as remote agencies might be reluctant to pay for the war efforts.  

 

 

[Jer]

from the FAQ:

 

But – won't the most successful DRO just arm itself, violently eliminate all the other DROs, and emerge as a new government?First of all, if the potential emergence of a newgovernment at some point in the future is of great concern, then surelythe elimination of existing governments in the present is a worthygoal. If we have cancer, we go through chemotherapy to eliminate it inthe present, even though we may get cancer again at some point in thefuture.Secondly, unlike governments, DROs are not violentinstitutions. DROs will be primarily populated by white-collar workers:accountants, executives and so on. DROs are as likely to becomeparamilitary organizations as your average accounting firm is likely tobecome an elite squad of ninja death warriors. Given the currentexistence of governments that possess nuclear weapons, I for one amwilling to take that risk.Thirdly, if a DRO tries to turnitself into a government, the other DROs will certainly act to preventit. DROs would simply refuse to cooperate with any DRO that refused tosubmit to "arms inspections." Furthermore, DRO customers would also nottake very kindly to their DRO becoming an armed institution – and theirrates would certainly skyrocket, because their DRO would have toprovide its regular services, as well as pay for all those blackhelicopters and RPGs. Any DRO that was paying for goods or servicesthat its customers did not want – i.e. an army – would very quickly goout of business, because it would not be competitive in terms of rates.

[alexqr1]

This is how I think things would probably work. However, I am just one guy and a free market is a competition of everyone’s ideas so someone could have better ideas that I do.

1. NOT POPULAR IS NOT FUN: Customer C of PDA P is a sceintist which conducts his experiments on monkeysthat he rears for this purpose in his private property.His studies attract negative publicity from animal rights activists and are presented to the public asatrocious and superfluous.Public opinion is swayed against him and 10% of the customers of P petition it to end its business relations with C,As a result, PDA P now considers C as a liabilty rather than an asset, updates its laws to forbade such activities& requires customer C to conform to the updated law or give up her services.Customer C considers this to be his life's work and refuses to stop his researchhe prefers to hire the services of another protection agency but no serious agency agrees to accept himdue to his unpopularity.The road is now open for animal rights activists to organise together & launch an act of aggression against the unpopular sceintist.In their rage, they kill the scientist & his family (to minimise the chance of future attributions against them) & divide all his property among them.

PDA P would consider C a liability, which would raise the cost of C being able to enter into contract with P. P may not even want C because of the trouble, but that would further raise C’s cost to contract a PDA, effectively enticing PDAs to make business with him which would in turn lower that cost to a level of equilibrium.If 10% of people won’t do business with a PDA that deals with animal researchers, then that will be calculated into what the level of equilibrium for the cost will be. Say 99.9% of people were against animal research, the cost for C would skyrocket making it economically impossible for him to contract one if he continues to research with animals. This would grant society the benefits of democracy without its violent shortcomings.

2. SUBJECT THE SECT: An indian sect from its own PDA, denoted A, in order to live peacefully under their own laws.PDA B, knowing that A's customers will never join itutilise its military advantage to impose a one sided agreement between A & B, which requires PDA A to pay PDA B an annual fee and forces A's customers to utilise agency B's courts in any dispute with B's customers.

That would only open the possibility that PDA C gets involved to help A’s customers. They would either help them for a cut of what they get back from B or A’s customers would freely mobilize towards C since A was not able to accommodate their needs.In a free society, the stronger an agency is, the more incentive there is for other agencies to counter it, so it would be in the agencies best interest not to become more powerful than they need to be because they would incur on a net loss.

3. FAR FROM THE EYE, FAR FROM THE HEART: Suppose that an agency in a desolate spot, converts to a rouge mode of operation (North Korea style),as the economic potential is small and as long as it doesn't provoke any major PDA she might be allowed to exist for a very long time as not enough individuals might be interested in funding liberation wars against it.In fact she might even agree not to compete with the other major PDAs and in return they might outlaw funding war operations against it.

This would only enhance the incentives for other PDAs to help. Imagine how much people would be willing to pay in order to get out of such repression. This would keep PDAs from becoming repressive because they know ultimately they would incur in a net loss. The more they oppress, the more likely it is they lose everything.

4. DIVIDE & CONQUER: Suppose that PDAs are geographically well localized, than a rouge agency might be able to divide & conquer its enemies as remote agencies might be reluctant to pay for the war efforts.

Again, the more oppression or destruction there is, the more incentive there is for other agencies to get involved, so it makes no sense to do it to begin with.

[Culain]

war

wôr/

noun

noun: war; plural noun: wars

1.

a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

 

 

In a stateless society you won't have a government, thus no war. But, there are still going to be armed conflicts between individuals, mobs, and gangs. How these smaller problems are solved will be up to the freemarket.

[Adam_Min_Hayeshuv]

Thank you all for your enlightening comments.

 

 

It seems to me that a free society offers a different form of security than a state.

 

A state theoretically brings about a form of 'PAXA ROMANA' inside its control zone

where law abiding citizens in good neighbourhoods don't expect to encounter any form of violence

but they might be forcibly drafted to the army to defend the state from real or imaginary enemies.

 

Whereas, in a free society, limited quarrels may be possible 

in case of coersion from clients of hostile DROs 

but there are no expensive wars against imaginary enemies 

(a DRO might still attempt to sell insurance against a virtually non existing threat)

and anyway there is no obligation to take active part in them

(unless the DRO contract obliges that as was the case in Iceland).

 

It might be argued that those limited quarrels have more in common

with state's armed policing efforts

than with wars between states.

[dsayers]

Is it voluntary or coercive? Does it violate self-ownership?

[alexqr1]

Thank you all for your enlightening comments.  It seems to me that a free society offers a different form of security than a state. A state theoretically brings about a form of 'PAXA ROMANA' inside its control zonewhere law abiding citizens in good neighbourhoods don't expect to encounter any form of violencebut they might be forcibly drafted to the army to defend the state from real or imaginary enemies. Whereas, in a free society, limited quarrels may be possible in case of coersion from clients of hostile DROs but there are no expensive wars against imaginary enemies (a DRO might still attempt to sell insurance against a virtually non existing threat)and anyway there is no obligation to take active part in them(unless the DRO contract obliges that as was the case in Iceland). It might be argued that those limited quarrels have more in commonwith state's armed policing effortsthan with wars between states.

I fail to understand where the similarities are. One is coercive the other is voluntary. I may want to sell you a popsicle that will make you live 200 years and it is up to you to buy it or not. It is completely different from forcing you to buy it whether you want it or not.