Major problem regarding anarchy?

[Gabranth]

So, I was chatting with a lawyer about stateless societies, and non-governmental order. He pointed out, what i think, is a major dilemma regarding stateless societies, that has been bugging me.

 

Basically it comes down to the problems that are created when an individual or a company goes bankrupt. For example, If you're in debt to someone (usually multiple people) the debter usually does not have enough money or property to repay all the debt to all the people. So how do you decide who gets paid first, with what limited money or property the debter has? The lawyer argues: only a central authority of governance and universal law can solve this peacefully.

 

If you say they can just bring the case to a private arbitrator. Then more problems arise. How do all the people involved agree on the arbitrator? How do you decide which person gets arbitrated first? How do you enforce the decision?

 

He pointed out as well, that a society needs a universally agreed upon system of property law, or external rule everyone agrees upon, so that violence doesnt erupt from disputes.

 

Thoughts? Opinions? How might a stateless society tackle this problem?

 

 

[csekavec]

Basically it comes down to the problems that are created when an individual or a company goes bankrupt. 

So if start by studying societies where the government was less involved than it is now. How did they solve this in the past? We know it was a matter on folks mind because of popular culture references, perhaps most famously: 

"He's gone, and forgot nothing but to say Farewel–

to his creditors"  - Poor Richards Almanack of 1733

 

Prior to using state power how did people deal with private debts? Use your google-fu and study. 

 

 

 The lawyer argues: only a central authority of governance and universal law can solve this peacefully.

 

That sentence is meaningless. How is using force called peace?

 

 

He pointed out as well, that a society needs a universally agreed upon system of property law, or external rule everyone agrees upon, so that violence doesnt erupt from disputes

 

If the law were universally agreed upon then there is no need for courts.  So obviously 'a society' doesn't need this universality. 

 

How disagreements are resolved is a  question treated in the fourth branch of philosophy (politics) and the answer is predicated upon the precepts of the three foundational branches: (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics).  A consistent theory of politics doesn't just spring into being.  And likewise to understand anarchy you should start with the study of the basics first. 

[thebeardslastcall]

Who says you can go 'bankrupt'? What do you mean by bankrupt? Did the person commit fraud to the second and later debtors about the first debt? What were the terms they agreed to should the person run into payment issues? All these possibilities will be baked into the agreement and there will be agencies both sides may pay into for arbitration purposes. Basically instead of having some forced central government being the arbiter the two individuals will decide who will arbitrate should issues arise and have terms for the contingencies. If they don't do this then likely what will happen is that one person will simply lose their investment. In a free society where reputation is king, however, people will have strong incentives to not rip people off or lie and will likely receive strong social punishments for cheating or playing dirty and will not easily get away with fraud without hurting themselves.

 

There is no government to say you're bankrupt and give you a free ride out of your debt obligations. The bankruptcy system is a removal of liability enforced by the government. This liability escape the government gives in many areas is what inhibits a free market and what causes people to have to work around this possibility. In other words people are at more risk now than they would be in a free market of losing all of their investment because they can't not have bankruptcy as an option.

 

You say a universal property law system or external rule everyone agrees to is need, except that it need only be between the individuals and not forced on everyone, and they choose their own system instead of having one forced upon them. The best systems will emerge and become popular for how to handle investments and debt without having to resort to violence.

[Mister Mister]

The US government is in 20 trillion dollars of debt and counting.  Unfunded liabilities exceed another 100 trillion.  Nearly all Western democracies have similar out of control debts.  Unpayable debts are a problem in general with lending money, and the interest rates tend to reflect this risk.  It is not a problem particular to anarchy, and is clearly a far worse problem in Statism, where debts can be left to future generations.

[Gabranth]

Well Im tending to think a universal system of governance and law was created because these kinds of issues plagued the past world. Because violence was used a lot of the time for disputes. Lets take one specific example as to why this may be necessary.

 

Say a store owner takes your money for a service thats to be fulfilled at a later time. The owner or business falls on money troubles for whatever reason and goes out of business leaving debts to various people and groups. Let's say this failed business owes a bank money but now it also owes you money back because it never fulfilled its service. The bank and you are separate contracted parties that never agreed before hand on what arbitration measures to use. But now you find yourselves in a situation where all 3 parties must agree on an arbitration service and in what order the parties are to be arbitrated first. Both parties want their money but only a limited amount of money is available to repay the debts.

 

Does this situation not raise concerns over an individual system of law versus a universal system of law?

[Gabranth]

So if start by studying societies where the government was less involved than it is now. How did they solve this in the past? We know it was a matter on folks mind because of popular culture references, perhaps most famously: 

"He's gone, and forgot nothing but to say Farewel–

to his creditors"  - Poor Richards Almanack of 1733

 

Prior to using state power how did people deal with private debts? Use your google-fu and study. 

 

 

 

That sentence is meaningless. How is using force called peace?

 

 

 

If the law were universally agreed upon then there is no need for courts.  So obviously 'a society' doesn't need this universality. 

 

How disagreements are resolved is a  question treated in the fourth branch of philosophy (politics) and the answer is predicated upon the precepts of the three foundational branches: (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics).  A consistent theory of politics doesn't just spring into being.  And likewise to understand anarchy you should start with the study of the basics first. 

 

Yes, but i was just curious if anyone had the answers before I looked more into it. Not that im lazy just saves me time and energy.

 

But if laws are universally agreed upon by society isnt that a system of government?

[Copper_Heart]

Basically it comes down to the problems that are created when an individual or a company goes bankrupt. For example, If you're in debt to someone (usually multiple people) the debter usually does not have enough money or property to repay all the debt to all the people. So how do you decide who gets paid first, with what limited money or property the debter has? The lawyer argues: only a central authority of governance and universal law can solve this peacefully.

Debt always involves risk of not being paid, which is not a violation of NAP. You are taking current debt situation in world is normal or axiomatic, but it is not. Usually people calculate risks very carefully before giving money, which has not happened during housing bubble.

 

https://mises.org/library/libertarian-theory-contract-title-transfer-binding-promises-inalienability-0this article will give you a good solid background.

 

So how do you decide who gets paid first, with what limited money or property the debter has? The lawyer argues: only a central authority of governance and universal law can solve this peacefully.

This decision is made in advance by all parties.

 

If you say they can just bring the case to a private arbitrator. Then more problems arise. How do all the people involved agree on the arbitrator? How do you decide which person gets arbitrated first? How do you enforce the decision?

 

Answer is the same. Debt is like marriage in this sense. You can't just do it blindly without thinking it through. Notice how marriage and debt have became such a huge problem nowadays.

[B0b]

 

If you say they can just bring the case to a private arbitrator. Then more problems arise. How do all the people involved agree on the arbitrator? How do you decide which person gets arbitrated first? How do you enforce the decision?

The private arbitrator can be specified in the company's articles of association.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

So, I was chatting with a lawyer about stateless societies, and non-governmental order. He pointed out, what i think, is a major dilemma regarding stateless societies, that has been bugging me.

 

Basically it comes down to the problems that are created when an individual or a company goes bankrupt. For example, If you're in debt to someone (usually multiple people) the debter usually does not have enough money or property to repay all the debt to all the people. So how do you decide who gets paid first, with what limited money or property the debter has? The lawyer argues: only a central authority of governance and universal law can solve this peacefully.

 

If you say they can just bring the case to a private arbitrator. Then more problems arise. How do all the people involved agree on the arbitrator? How do you decide which person gets arbitrated first? How do you enforce the decision?

 

He pointed out as well, that a society needs a universally agreed upon system of property law, or external rule everyone agrees upon, so that violence doesnt erupt from disputes.

 

Thoughts? Opinions? How might a stateless society tackle this problem?

 

Well obviously the current central authority of governance cannot solve it peacefully as that authority is founded on violence. 

Stefan has already addressed these supposed problems in his free book "practical anarchy" which you can download and listen to on this channel. 

The main problem the lawyer has is that every problem he posits also applies to the government. 

[mahayana]

Basically it comes down to the problems that are created when an individual or a company goes bankrupt... The lawyer argues: only a central authority of governance and universal law can solve this peacefully.

 

So let me get this straight. This lawyer's assertion is that the only peaceful way to resolve a contracts case is through an entity whose existence relies solely on force (which is anything but peaceful)?

 

Why don't those going into the contract simply address the issue of what should happen in the event that one party defaults on a debt and outline a list of approved solutions/debt arbitrators?

[Wuzzums]

So how do you decide who gets paid first, with what limited money or property the debter has?

 

I don't decide anything, they must decide for themselves. If they didn't come to an agreement regarding this scenario before entering the deal then I guess they're shit out of luck.

 

A stateless society doesn't tackle anything. In a stateless society I get rewarded for making good decisions and punished for making bad decissions, that's it. It's not some sort of utopia where everybody is happy, it's a place full of unhappy people because it's fair.

 

To put it more bluntly, their problems are not my problems so I don't care. 

[WasatchMan]

If you were worried about someone going bankrupt that you are lending money to then all you would do is use some of the interest to take out bankruptcy insurance. Or you roll the dice, have a diverse portfolio, or put your money under your mattress, your choice really. What is not your choice is to pay strong men to collect money from people who had nothing to do with the deal, did not assume your risk, to help bailout your choices.

[thebeardslastcall]

But if laws are universally agreed upon by society isnt that a system of government?

 

That is distinctly not a system of government. Governments are what you get when you don't have universal agreement and people decide to use force to make up the difference. Universal agreement is a form of anarchy. Everyone agrees not to use violence to get their way and to respect other people's property. Debt is only an issue if ownership rules are violated to create confusion on ownership. So long as you are honest and respect ownership rules the issue will resolve itself in a reasonably just manner. Debt has risks and debtors know this and accept this risk for a potential pay off later in interest. That's the game. Government 'debt' is just theft. Forcing one group of people to pay for other people's spending they didn't agree to. That's the 'debt' of statism that is far more troublesome than the 'debt' of anarchism.  If you don't want to risk losing your money in anarchy then don't lend out money to people. Problem solved.

[B0b]

So long as you are honest and respect ownership rules the issue will resolve itself in a reasonably just manner.

What makes you think that everyone would be honest?

[Gabranth]

Appreciate the replies people. Will have to read up on Stef's book. And maybe some more Rothbardian views on private courts,

 

The lawyer also kept trying to tell me that property cant really exist without it being expressly defined by a government. Or that money, contracts, debt, personal property etc cant really exist without a regulatory system defined by law.

 

Maybe I'm not reproducing his views all they well. as they didnt seem to make much sense to me. Perhaps like religion, law isn't supposed to make sense.

[thebeardslastcall]

What makes you think that everyone would be honest?

 

I don't. Lending money is a risk. You have to accurately assess the honesty of the person for yourself to minimize your risks. More honest people will have an easier time getting lent money and will likely, by virtue of being more honest, get better terms making it easier for them to repay as well. Reputation will be very important in a more free society. People will have a stronger incentive to not cheat each other and will have  harder time getting away with cheating when people are more free to disassociate than they are now. The state's current policies also make it hard to fairly assess people without risking a discrimination charge and other troubles, inhibiting positive (win-win) associations.

 

With all this said, if anarchy's "major problem" is a situation that is effectively better than what is had now, it's kind of hard to say it's a major problem. That's like saying "major problem with your system, it's not a utopian perfect solution with all answers from the start, therefore we shouldn't set it as a goal for improvement over what we have". That's how almost all challenges to anarchy basically go. They suggest a ridiculous standard blind to the current situation and say it's the wrong direction because it's not a golden kingdom of glory, so why bother trying to improve? Setting an impossible standard is just blocking progress because you don't want to face moral improvements and have to actually improve yourself and hold people morally responsible for their actions because you're afraid.

[dsayers]

Wonder why my post isn't live after two attempts?

[thebeardslastcall]

Appreciate the replies people. Will have to read up on Stef's book. And maybe some more Rothbardian views on private courts,

 

The lawyer also kept trying to tell me that property cant really exist without it being expressly defined by a government. Or that money, contracts, debt, personal property etc cant really exist without a regulatory system defined by law.

 

Maybe I'm not reproducing his views all they well. as they didnt seem to make much sense to me. Perhaps like religion, law isn't supposed to make sense.

He's a lawyer. Being a lawyer means learning the language of law. They're the same as English words, except they all have their own definitions provided by the government. He's probably so deep into legalize speak that he forgets these words have actual meanings outside of their government definitions. All the legal terms he has learned are fairly meaningless outside the context of a central government defining terms.

 

You can still have a group defining terms and providing a framework for legal type issues and property. The main difference is just that you choose this system for yourself instead of having it forced on you. I suspect most people will not choose a system that has all its own terms that overlap English as when people have to actually be involved in the process and understand the language they're going to want to keep things as simple as possible and as close to natural language as possible to avoid confusions.

 

Saying property can't exist without government is saying before governments it wasn't murder to kill someone. He's suggesting he doesn't inherently or by any base rule possess or own his own body. The free market does have a regulatory system. This regulatory system is chosen and enforced without violence except in defense from violence.

 

Law doesn't make sense in that it is a conglomeration of a thousand threads being pulled in different directions to control and design the same body of rules. Laws by majority rule are crazy. The law is a thousand chefs in the kitchen and chefs regularly cycling in and out as they all try to make a meal. This is a bad way to prepare a meal.