Question about "Anarcho-Capitalism"
The Master
wikipedia, and I found myself asking a few basic questions.
Murray Rothbard said there would be a mutually agreed upon legal code
that the courts would agree to follow. Bruce Benson seems to have
supported this view by saying that standardized rules that would be seen
as generally fair by members of the community would be established.
How is this much different then a governmental legislature that creates
laws? Theoretically, everyone would agree to follow the Rothbard "code",
but what if I don't want to? Am I then forced to follow the rules anyhow?
If so, then by who's authority?
It just seems to me that Murray Rothbard was talking about Minarchy, but
with decentralized police and court systems. That is, the legislature
still establishes rule of law, but it is up to private protection
companies to enforce rule of law, and Dispute Resolution Organizations to
decide on the restitutions for violations of the rule of law.
Contrast that with David Friedman's idea of free market laws, that would
grind the entire "legal system" to a hault. Why should I follow the laws
followed by you, when I found a set that I like more? How would the DRO
then resolve disputes between legal systems where an action is justified
under one but not under the other?
Alex Russell
> I was reading about Anarcho-Capitalism (AKA Free Market Anarchy) on
> wikipedia, and I found myself asking a few basic questions.
>
> Murray Rothbard said there would be a mutually agreed upon legal code
> that the courts would agree to follow. Bruce Benson seems to have
> supported this view by saying that standardized rules that would be seen
> as generally fair by members of the community would be established.
>
> How is this much different then a governmental legislature that creates
> laws? Theoretically, everyone would agree to follow the Rothbard
> "code", but what if I don't want to? Am I then forced to follow the
> rules anyhow? If so, then by who's authority?
Many people see the area with the same agreed upon rules being smaller
than current countries so you could just walk somewhere where the rules
are more to your liking. A city, or even a large part of a city may have
fairly consistent rules.
In my personal view, there would be a lot less rules, and a lot more
freedom. Where the anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists will
almost certainly disagree is regarding property and maybe contracts. But
both won't be enforcing borders.
>
> It just seems to me that Murray Rothbard was talking about Minarchy, but
> with decentralized police and court systems. That is, the legislature
> still establishes rule of law, but it is up to private protection
> companies to enforce rule of law, and Dispute Resolution Organizations
> to decide on the restitutions for violations of the rule of law.
Both parties to a dispute would have to agree on which private court to
use. You might agree ahead of time if writing up a contract.
>
> Contrast that with David Friedman's idea of free market laws, that would
> grind the entire "legal system" to a hault. Why should I follow the
> laws followed by you, when I found a set that I like more? How would
> the DRO then resolve disputes between legal systems where an action is
> justified under one but not under the other?
>
>
That is a very good question. A common answer is start a community that
shares your values, or move to one that does.
Alex