Polycentric Law

by Stephan Kinsella on July 10, 2005

From Mises Economics Blog 07/10/2005; archived comments below

Polycentric Law

In a recent post on Liberty and Power, one of the posters refers to: “‘polycentric’ law, or the idea that multiple forms of law can overlap within the same geographic area. Law need not be, and in fact is not, a monopoly within a specific geographic region.”

I asked there–is there any reason to use the term “polycentric” to describe what is basically anarcho-capitalism, other than the tactical reason of trying to avoid alerting mainstream people that what is being discussed is anarchy?

I had similar concerns in my review ¹ of Randy Barnett’s 1998 book The Structure Of Liberty (pp. 67-68), in which he used terms like polycentric legal order (instead of anarchy) and “several property” instead of private property.

Is there something I’m missing here? Are there reasons to use such terms apart from tactical ones?

archived comments

Comments (51)

Stephan Kinsella
Only thing I can think, polycentrism might not imply anarchy–it might imply you could have some kind of legal competitiveness within a given state–but of course, that could be used to support the notion of federalism. I don’t think the “polycentrists” are big advocates of federalism.
Published: July 10, 2005 3:42 PM
André Dorais
The reason may only be tactical but it is nonetheless important. We cannot convince someone if we scared him or her off. It does mean we should lie to people to convince them, but rather that we should use appropriate language to bring them to our views. That language will be different depending on who we talk to or who we believe we talk to.
Published: July 10, 2005 3:54 PM
Manuel Lora
The problem with the assumption that it could be federalism is that this is a special case of government, and not the norm. The definition of a state, to me, would seem to also imply geographical limits. Therefore, how can we have both a state and polycentrism? I can see at least two possibilities:a) Polycentric states would mean that people are in an otherwise totally free state until they decided to pick their “defense agency,” which could be what Barnett means. Under this assumption, the “states” would not be bound by geographic regions at all, just as today plumbing services are not bound by those physical limits.b) If polycentrism means that we have true anarchocapitalism, then the federal notion is troublesome. For, how can the federal government be polycentric if it is geographically unbound. That is, the U.S. government would have jurisdiction, even if minimal, over the existing states. Thus, it would not be polycentric but unicentric if anything.
So I am more inclined to think that by polycentrism he might just mean anarchy in the Rothbardian, defense agency way. The defense agencies would compete and thus they would have laws and the rest of the goodies. So yes, this might just be a word to avoid being called a radical, since polycentric law has certain erudite tendencies, whereas anarchism reeks of guns and gold hoarders.

Another reason to support the above argument is that his book is a general book about law and not just the US system of federalism.
Published: July 10, 2005 4:20 PM
Mike Linksvayer
I think anarchocapitalism would be a strong example of polycentric law, but the latter could refer to any set of overlapping or competing legal systems or jurisdictions, including ones where individuals have little choice about which system they fall under.Ambassadorial privilege is cited as an example of polycentric law.
Published: July 10, 2005 4:41 PM
Manuel Lora
Mike: if by overlapping you mean geographically, then it can be anarchocapitalism. If by overlapping we mean federalism, then Mr. Kinsella’s assumption that this could imply federalism is not compatible, as states are geographically limited.
Published: July 10, 2005 5:09 PM
Ike Hall
Regarding Randy Barnett’s use of words, it is important to remember that Mr. Barnett is a senior fellow for the Cato Institute. If I recall correctly, Murray Rothbard was central to Cato’s founding, but Ed Crane basically kicked Rothbard out. Even today, one finds an anti-Rothbardian tilt to Bennett’s writings, even though he and Rothbard described essentially the same world.
Published: July 10, 2005 8:46 PM
David White
Stephan,With all due respect, “what is being discussed” is NOT anarchy, and why libertarians persist in the self-defeating use a word that the dictionary defines quite clearly as “absence of law or government” is beyond me. It’s as if libertarians want to scare people away rather than attract them to our cause, which isn’t lawlessness but government without the monopoly on the use of force otherwise known as the State.Moreover, why do libertarians persist in coupling the word anarchy with the word capitalism when the latter is now so identified with the crony capitalism of the Corporate State as to be indistinquishable from it, especially when every economic system beyond a subsistence economy is based on capital formation and is thus capitalistic?
Let me be blunt: Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer — a clumsy and ugly sounding one at that — that should be dispensed with accordingly. So how about a contest to come up with a correct — and marketable — term for government without a State? I’ve got one, but let’s hear from others first.
Published: July 10, 2005 9:05 PM
David J. Heinrich
David White,While I see your point, there is a long and respectable history of the use of the term “Anarchist” in the US. Such supporters of liberty as Spooner and Tucker used that word. There is even a respectable (although less so) history of that word in Europe, although there it is associated with socialist anarchists.The point of the term anarchy is to indicate the absence of a State.
As an alternative, I suggest propertarianism or perhaps a “libertarian natural order”.
Published: July 10, 2005 10:10 PM
Michael Hartl
David,I couldn’t agree more. I’ve had surprising success in moving “normal” people a long way toward “anarcho-capitalism” through informal conversations, but I’m always fastidious about avoiding specific terminology to avoid confusing them or scaring them off.I think that there’s a close analogy with the free software movement, which was constantly hampered by the pervasive confusion of “free as in freedom” with “free as in gratis”. The success of the term “open source software” to mean essentially the same thing, and the resulting adoption by a previously skeptical business world, is testament to the power of words—something intimately familiar to anyone who has ever tried to sell anything to a possibly unwilling public.
My own tendency is to say that I believe in a free society. People usually agree with me, and then add that our society is already free. This gives me the opening I need to discuss the ways in which government makes us unfree, and how the crucial functions of government might be provided by private firms. They often disagree with these claims, at least initially, but—crucially—the conversation starts from a point of agreement.

Rebranding “anarcho-capitalism” using a term that fosters immediate acceptance, rather than confusion or instinctive rejection, is a necessary prerequisite for widespread adoption of our ideas. We may have to do what the open source people did—get together and brainstorm to see what pops out. This blog comment thread is a modest start, but it is a start nevertheless.

The hard part would then be to push that new term—using both an umbrella organization and one or more full-time activists—in order to achieve widespread adoption.

Any volunteers?

Michael
Published: July 10, 2005 10:36 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Hartl: “My own tendency is to say that I believe in a free society. People usually agree with me, and then add that our society is already free. This gives me the opening I need to discuss the ways in which government makes us unfree, and how the crucial functions of government might be provided by private firms.”It is this tactical- or strategy-oriented type of view that indeed consumes some “activist” type libertarians. They seem totally unaware that not all libertarians are of this type. To some of us, the terminolgy and concepts we employ are governed by intellectual concerns, not whehter it “gives us openings” with people.
Published: July 10, 2005 11:00 PM
Stephan Kinsella
White:

With all due respect, “what is being discussed” is NOT anarchy, and why libertarians persist in the self-defeating use a word that the dictionary defines quite clearly as “absence of law or government” is beyond me. It’s as if libertarians want to scare people away rather than attract them to our cause, which isn’t lawlessness but government without the monopoly on the use of force otherwise known as the State.

Well, you may have a point. But when you saya “our cause,” be aware that not everyone lives and dies for “strategy” and “tactics.” Some of us are actually interested in honesty, truth, substance, and integrity.

Let me be blunt: Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer — a clumsy and ugly sounding one at that — that should be dispensed with accordingly. So how about a contest to come up with a correct — and marketable — term for government without a State? I’ve got one, but let’s hear from others first.

Don’t be coy. This has been done many times. Propertarian? Liberal? Market-liberal? (gag) Contractarian? The Voluntarity?

I have myself before tried to identify what is the essence of libertarianism. In my mind, the essence lies in the following principles: conflict avoidance. respect for others. first possession and better title. Preference for cooperation and civilized behavior.

Now, what term embodies these principles?
Published: July 10, 2005 11:02 PM
plowman
The ultimate problem here is that foe in this argument is totally perverse. Naturally, as soon as you come up with a good word, such as liberal, it doesn’t take long before it means the precise opposite.One of the good things about economics is that it remains a step away from politics, even though it is so thoroughly intertwined with it, that its concepts are able to retain some of their meaning over time. (not to trash my point here, but as a counterexample I do tend to refer to mainstream “economists” as “beauracratists,” since they seem to take politics as a first principle.)Sometimes I like to keep it simple and tell people I support a purely free market because I think it already implies the absence of government. In a purely free market, there would be no interference with personal wealth or the production of security etc., and so it would in fact have to be anarchical.
I do like the term “anarcho-capitalism,” but it is a heavily loaded term. It is probably the most widely accepted term for the theory it represents, which gives it value. I also like Hoppe’s “Natural order,” but unfortunately it is not highly descriptive or obvious in what it means.

I have also considered telling people that I am a law and order anarchist – but I haven’t bumped into anyone who deserved to be confused that badly lately.
Published: July 11, 2005 12:53 AM
Stephan Kinsella
My own preference of late, FWIW, is “anarcho-libertarian”–but, as I believe “libertarian” implies “anarcho-libertarian,” I think the terms are redundant.I agree that the terms do not much matter. As Ayn Rand wrote,

“Why do you use the word ‘selfishness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?” To those who ask it, my answer is: “For the reason that makes you afraid of it.”
Published: July 11, 2005 12:59 AM
Michael Hartl
Stephan,For what it’s worth, I am most assuredly not an activist-type libertarian. I’m careful to broach the subject only if it comes up in conversation, and then only if I feel that the other person will genuinely be interested in a new point of view. While I have respect for the more vocal libertarians out there, I often wish that they were better-versed in the subtle art of persuasion. It’s all too easy to “win” a debate while losing the cause, by alienating the other person—a mistake which, alas, I have made on more than one occasion.As for having terminology being governed by intellectual concerns, that view has much to be said for it, especially in the context of precise and scholarly discussions of ideas. But most libertarians, while interested in the intellectual structure of libertarian philosophy, seem also to be genuinely interested in actually living in a (more) libertarian society. To the extent that our terminology makes that outcome less likely, it’s important to be open to using less precise but more persuasive language. Coming up with a way to develop this new language while preserving principles and integrity may be a challenge—but it’s a challenge that I believe is worth embracing.
Michael
Published: July 11, 2005 1:11 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Michael–

While I have respect for the more vocal libertarians out there, I often wish that they were better-versed in the subtle art of persuasion. It’s all too easy to “win” a debate while losing the cause, by alienating the other person—a mistake which, alas, I have made on more than one occasion.

I want to say that this is a resonable comment, but that it is extra-libertarian, or perhaps meta-libertarian. Libertarianism specifies how rights are violated, and that they politically ought not to be. It has nothing to say, per se, about strategies and tactics such as you go into above.

As for having terminology being governed by intellectual concerns, that view has much to be said for it, especially in the context of precise and scholarly discussions of ideas. But most libertarians, while interested in the intellectual structure of libertarian philosophy, seem also to be genuinely interested in actually living in a (more) libertarian society.

This very comment, it seems to me, implicitly adopts the tactician’s mentality or approach. It implies that those who are interested in, say, truth, are not “genuinely interested in actually living in a (more) libertarian society”. But the things are separate.

To the extent that our terminology makes that outcome less likely, it’s important to be open to using less precise but more persuasive language.

It’s “important”–to activist-minded types.

Coming up with a way to develop this new language while preserving principles and integrity may be a challenge—but it’s a challenge that I believe is worth embracing.

Again–this cost-benefit view of things is that of the tactician. Taciticians are not stupid. Why can they not see the difference?
Published: July 11, 2005 1:23 AM
Richard CB Johnsson
As someone already has noted, anarchism means no rule, or no government. But what most libertarians of anarchist persuasion object to is the territorial monopoly on the use of force, not the government per se. Thus, anarchy doesn’t seem to be the best word to describe the anti-monopolist stance. There is a difference between being anti-monopoly and anti-government. This has nothing to do about tactics or strategy. And after all, as John Zube writes: “’Anarchy for ALL!’ – is also an authoritarian imposition.�?Government without territorial monopoly? Yes, history is full of examples. In fact, it used to be the universal way of governance prior to the rise of the current monopolist governments and states. When it comes to the history of non-territorial governance and polycentric law, as well as the Ambassadorial privilege, the perhaps best source and, alas, the most overlooked one, is Shih Shun Liu’s ‘Extraterritoriality, Its Rise and Its Decline’(that I have helped putting on-line). Especially the first part is extremely interesting and relevant. I have also written a piece over at LRC referring to the Liu book, ‘‘To the Monopolists of All Parties’, as well as a longer review, ‘‘‘Non-Territorial Governance – Mankind’s Forgotten Legacy’ for those of you that are interested.Personally, I prefer the term panarchy, meaning ‘all rules.’ (I also favor ‘non-territorial governance’ if I want to stress the territorial aspect.) Panarchists don’t deny that most people don’t want freedom at all but build their whole framework upon that fact – “To each the non-territorial government or non-governmental society of his/her choice.�? (This might have both strategical and tactical dimensions, but I won’t go into that.)
Published: July 11, 2005 3:53 AM
Otto Kerner
Polycentric law is the legal system of anarcho-capitalism. They are essentially the same thing. However, there’s no obvious reason why anarcho-capitalism is the more correct or more honest word. It is both unpleasant to the ear and potentially misleading (misleading twice over: it could confuse us both with pro-chaos nihilists and with Bakunin/Kropotkin/Goldman socialists). Not only is what we believe in is not what most people call “anarchy” and it’s more than just “capitalism” (moreover, it excludes some definitions of capitalism, although I don’t think those are very good definitions).Although I share much of Kinsella’s distaste for tacticians, I don’t see a competing issue of intellectual honesty here. Unlike the case of “private property”, most people have never heard of “anarcho-capitalism”, so it doesn’t mean anything to them. If you talk to people about it, it will probably be the first time they’ve heard of it, so you can call it whatever you think is appropriate. If a neologism must be had, I support state abolitionism or abolitionist libertarianism.Personally, I also like the word “bourgeois” a lot, which is basically a shorthand for “civilized behavior”. This is one of the key things that separates us from other anarchists: they hate bourgeois society and want to destroy it. I have sometimes called myself a bourgeois anarchist, although that sounds a bit too much like “anti-Semitic Jew”.
Published: July 11, 2005 3:54 AM
Illuminatus
Now, what term embodies these principles?Consentarian?
Published: July 11, 2005 4:56 AM
John Zube
If anyone thinks that “anarcho-capitalism” (or any other term with essentially the same meaning) is or will be soon, if ever, the ideal for all people living in a territory, including all of Earth and other planets and other space habitats, then he makes the same basic mistake that the statists engage in whenever they imagine that their various forms and degrees of “sado-masochism” are or will soon be, if ever, the ideal of all somewhat moral and rational people. – I suggest the study of the history of personal law and exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities – for all kinds of anarchists, libertarians and statists. See e.g. www.panarchism.info and www.panarchy.org – I for one favour full exterritorial autonomy for all voluntary communities, even those of our present opponents, or, using older terms, full minority autonomy or experimental freedom, quite independent of present & future territorial constitutions, laws, governments and jurisdictions. It begins by individual and group secessionism by people appreciating and wanting to uphold and realize at least some of their individual rights and liberties among themselves, at their own risk and expense, while granting the same right to all others. – No system is to be forced upon anyone – except aggressors against genuine basic rights and liberties. – John Zube, 11.7.05, for Libertarian Microfiche Publishing and libertarian and anarchist CDs, DVDs and external HDs, i.e. complete anarchist & libertarian reference collections.
Published: July 11, 2005 5:01 AM
iceberg
Gary North’s article on LR (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north393.html) mentions in regard to marketing:”Second, the same three factors are present in advertising, especially direct-response advertising: grammar (the offer), logic (proof), and emotion. What those of us who write direct-response copy know from years of measurable responses to our ads is that emotion sells. Logic is there to justify the emotional commitment that the copywriter’s copy produces in the reader.

Rhetoric mobilizes emotion. Its primary goal is to produce an emotional response that in turn produces a specific action.”

So to answer Stephan’s question, it’s just rhetoric appeal, for those who want to avoid logical argument, confrontation and want to sell an opinion or viewpoint, either true or untrue.
Published: July 11, 2005 7:46 AM
Manuel Lora
If we had to start all over, the word “liberal” would be fine with me. In fact, that same term is used in Spain and most of Latin America to mean “libertarian” (or at worst minarchist).
Published: July 11, 2005 8:04 AM
Roderick T. Long
On terminology:I do think “polycentric law” is a broader term. For one thing, it’s a matter of degree; a constitutional republic with checks and balances and divisions of power is more polycentric than a dictatorship; still more polycentric is the Icelandic system, that had a monopoly legislature but no monopoly executive or judiciary; anarchy is even more polycentric than that.I do use the term “anarchy,” for several reasons: it’s better to call yourself an anarchist up front than be “outed” as an anarchist; if you call yourself an anarchist you can’t be confused with a Republican; it’s harder to justify compromises when your position is called anarchism; and with some audiences it actually is better P.R. than the alternatives.
I tend to use “market anarchist” or “free-market anarchist” rather than “anarcho-capitalist” simply because the term “capitalist” is too ambiguous, meaning corporatism/mercantilism to some people and free markets to others.
Published: July 11, 2005 11:02 AM
Ike Hall
Roderick,Not only that, but “anarcho-capitalist” just doesn’t flow very well. I like “free-market anarchist”, but no matter which term any of us use, I think we’ll recognize it when we achieve it.
Published: July 11, 2005 11:32 AM
Michael A. Clem
To get back to the original question, ‘polycentric law’ is a legal term referring to legal systems, while anarcho-capitalism is a term referring to a political philosophy. AC may call for polycentric law, but polycentric law may or may not be possible outside an AC political system (I’m not sure). In any case polycentric law can refer only to the legal system of an AC political system, and not the entire political philosophy. Thus, while there are obvious similarities, the terms are not completely interchangeable.AS for ‘anarchocapitalist’ itself, I rather like the term, but I understand the desire to find something more acceptable to the mainstream. We need to find something that implies order without government, not chaos, much like Hayek’s term ‘spontaneous order’. Spontaneous law? Bruce Benson used customary law, but again, that refers simply to the legal system, not the political philosophy. ‘Market anarchism’ still conjures the fear of chaos, I think. ‘Market law’, or ‘market order’? Where’s that darned thesaurus?
Published: July 11, 2005 11:57 AM
David White
Stephan,No intent to be coy, just wanted to open the matter up for discussion, which I’m glad to see it did.That said, whatever “long and respectable history” anarcho-capitalism has, it’s obviously a failed history so far as public awareness of the term, much less acceptance, is concerned (as Otto Kerner pointed out above). A concise — and yes, marketable — term is therefore essential if the notion of government without a State is to gain currency and find favor with the general public.
Propertarian is certainly a step in the right direction, but it strikes me as a step too far in that it places too much emphasis on a vitally important but insufficient aspect of the libertarian ideal. Panarchy is good for connoting rule of some kind, but strikes me as not specific enough, while consentarian speaks to the consent that is essential free relations among individuals, but lacks a reference to rule. As civil society is based on voluntary cooperation between and among consenting individuals, the term I propose is cooperacy, for cooperative rule, the better to (1) denote a specific kind of rule and (2) let it be understood that even the market, which arises from but does not totally encompass the social enterprise (as some market enthusiasts seem to suggest), is fundamentally cooperative. A cooperatist, then, could begin with cooperation as the modus operandus of civil society, set forth the “negative” rules of conduct (one’s rights to life, liberty, and property are not to be violated), and explain how polycentric law, itself a part of the cooperative process (in that competing enforcement and judicial firms must cooperate with their customers or perish) could maintain order with minimal coercion.

I would add that I still think a Social Contract specifying the rules of conduct and binding the members of society accordingly would still be necessary. Unlike constitutionalism, in which an elite few in the founding generation bind all subsequent generations, a Social Contract that all members of society would have to sign in order to BE members of that society would be a truly living document that would ipso facto make polycentric law contract law, which has long been an established and very successful legal system. Thus, violators of the rights of others would not be committing crimes (which, as statutory, are inherently Statist) but simply breaching their contract with the other members of society, exposing themselves to punishment accordingly.
Published: July 11, 2005 12:30 PM
Roderick T. Long
I sometimes use the phrase “anarchist legal order,” to show that we’re not anti-law; but that’s too big a mouthful to use every time.Molinari used the phrase “freedom of government” (by analogy with “freedom of trade” — i.e., let people compete in offering “governmental” services), which I have to say is perhaps one of the weirdest euphemisms for anarchy ever devised.
Published: July 11, 2005 12:32 PM
tz
If there is such a thing as “polycentric law”, it is a misnomer or unjust. I assume they would overlap.Normally there can only be one optimally just outcome in a justice system. If there are multiple systems, either they all produce the same – assumed correct – result (all calculators say 2+2=4), or some of not all are defective (like a pile of rulers which all are different length, but divided into 12 subdivisions all labeled “inch”, maybe the plastic stretched or compressed).I find I understand the term “Anarchocapitalism” without a problem. I don’t see it as anarchy, but more like the people regulate themselves – as the recent article about the Quakers in Pennsylvania – so don’t need an external agency. But a Quaker would not say there is no law or authority – he would point to God and say his law was to be obeyed.
I do find it interesting that the more relativistic a society we become, the more specific and the greater number our laws become. Before when everyone understood right and wrong you didn’t need 10,000 pages to explain it, much less enforce it. Now few have any respect for the body of the law.
Published: July 11, 2005 3:23 PM
David White
tz,What body? The “law” is a cancer of metastasizing statutes that no person can know, understand, or obey. It is lawlessness masquerading as law and will devour its host unless it is eradicated.As for poloycentric law, I had not heard the term until now, but I understand it to mean decentralized, market-based law that is fully in keeping with the stateless, cooperative rule for which I suggest the name cooperacy.
As for anarchocapitalism, if it isn’t anarchy, why use the term? Face it, it’ll never sell. Worse, it will only drive our “customers” away.
Published: July 11, 2005 4:28 PM
Manuel Lora
The anarchy part of anarchocapitalism is also lack of force. By chosing your market-based law, you are not being coerced at all and is still stateless. So it is both anarchy (lack of force).Regarding “selling” it to “customers” that’s another issue separately.
Published: July 11, 2005 4:44 PM
David White
Manuel,As with everything else, there is a marketplace of ideas, the selling of which requires as much attention as the ideas themselves. After all, if building a better mousetrap were all that was necessary for the world to beat a path to your door, marketing departments would not be necessary.”Build it and they will come?” Tell that to an entrepreneur.
And what are we if not idea entrepreneurs?
Published: July 11, 2005 5:33 PM
averros
Panarchy, is, unfortunately, a misnomer.The only discernible principle of “panarchy” is voluntary association. But a realistic society which has murderers and thiefs needs to deal with them without their cooperation, meaning that the there need to be some well-defined limits to justifable application of violence. But the existence of these well-defined limits is exactly what is being rejected by the panarchy – reducing it to “might makes it right”. Which, pretty much, is the current system, thank you.
Published: July 11, 2005 6:39 PM
Manuel Lora
David,I agree that there is a marketplace for ideas, but I think there are two issues here. One: does polycentric law mean anarchocapitalism/anarchy? And two: what is the best term to sell those ideas. Don’t forget also, that even within marketing, the approach is different depending on the audience. Perhaps for a more academic reader the term used would be different than, say, for a TV debate or newspaper letter to the editor.
Published: July 11, 2005 7:16 PM
Richard CB Johnsson
Dear averros,
You are correct that the current system is “might makes it right”. But whatever we might think of the term panarchy, I’m not so sure why “well-defined limits to justifable application of violence�? are “rejected by the panarchy�?. If people would be allowed to have the full political freedom of choosing and having the government (or none) they like, implying individual secession together with as much economic freedom they like, why would this imply that there would be no “well-defined limits to justifable application of violence�?? Who would want to enter into such panarchies? Not many, nor very similar to the current system where you are forced into such a situation. As for violence against other non-members, you would have a better armed populace and private militias – again, not very similar to the current system with its territorial monopoly on force. For conflict solving between members of different panarchies, you’d have things like arbitration, mixed courts, the ancient
“actor sequitur forum rei�? principle – again, hardly lack of principles, so typical of the current system. I hope I didn’t misinterpret your post. If so, please let me know in what way.
Published: July 11, 2005 9:02 PM
averros
Dear Richard — the problem with panarchy, the way I see it, is that it is intended to include diverse group-specific systems of law, sone of which may actually condone doing violence to non-members of the group. The members, being the beneficiaries, would have little incentive for seccession, and the only recourse for non-members would be warfare.Seeing how many people are believers into social-democratic, theocratic and other collectivist doctrines, I’d say such aggressive groups will be sufficiently popular to destabilize the entire society. In fact, being a member of the most dangerous and warlike league is going to provide improved personal security – this is exactly the situation with gangs, where membership is to a large extent voluntary, but the non-members are being terrorized into joining one of the gangs.The natural law approach looks more stable by providing the baseline of stronger (in the mathematical sense) non-aggression principle at all levels, and not just the principle of voluntary membership. Under the natual law an aggressing group becomes criminal, not just “different”. Even under the natural law, there’s a lot of possible interpretations (I, for example, do not agree with Rothbardian theory of contracts in the part about inpermissibilty of voluntarily entering slavery), methods for finding out adequate remedies for irrepairable damages, standards for procedure and evidence presentation, etc.
So I tend to see the natural law system as a kind of polycentric law system which has a method for inter-group conflict resolution, where the decision of an arbiter can be derived from the first principles. Within groups members may sign up (contractually) to any kind of law they wish. The natural law only provides guidelines for conflict resolution between members of different groups and guarantees of freedom to choose a group. Of course, it is expected that most people would stay with groups having a system of laws approximating the natural law, or simply form personal “groups of one” or family groups, with no special allegiance or bonds to any of the other groups.
Published: July 11, 2005 10:40 PM
Richard CB Johnsson
Dear averros, you write that some panarchies “may actually condone doing violence to non-members of the group�? and turn this into an argument against panarchy. Panarchy won’t turn violent people into peaceful ones, sure. But that is hardly unique to panarchy, is it? Individuals and groups of people being aggressive towards others are of course criminals.Moreover, you seem to assume that all “believers into social-democratic, theocratic and other collectivist doctrines�? are aggressive. That is plainly wrong. I’ve lived my entire life in social-democratic Sweden and can’t say that people are aggressive. It is a rather peaceful place.Of course, they rely on the territorial monopoly in order to make some of their come through. But it would be wrong to assume that all of them do this because they want to be bad to you. Many of them simply want to live their way of life, just like you and me. It is the monopoly that forces everybody to impose their will on others in order to be able to live their way.
It would be wrong to assume that because social-democrats have ruled in Sweden for a long time, the majority of Swedes or social-democrats have a situation where their dreams have come true. In the last election, the current government was supported by as little as 31% of the electorate and 42% of actual votes. This means that neither the majority or the social-democrats themselves can have their will come through, but have to rely on others. None is happy as things are. None want the will of others imposed on them.

Finally, it seems wrong to me to dismiss panarchy on the grounds of straw man arguments. I beg you not to, and why not check out a book on the topic?
Published: July 12, 2005 6:41 AM
averros
Dear Richard, we seem to have the different notion of what constitutes aggression. You see it as something violent and disturbing, but in fact most aggression against others’ freedom and property is not violent because victims are brainwashed or terrified sufficiently to meekly allow the aggressors to take their belongings and rights away without much fuss. But make no mistake, if anyone makes a stand then all the violence will be out in force – what would happen to someone in Sweden who refused to pay taxes? Yep, the people with guns will be coming and telling the victim to pay up or else. And if he still persists in refusing, then they’ll be beating him up, kidnapping him, and holding him against his will in a locked place.If this is not violence or aggression, then I don’t know what is.Collectivism is by its very nature aggressive – because it implies that non-conformists will be made to conform to the will of the collective by means of violence. Of course, the collectivist regimes like to maintain the facade of order and civility – as long as you’re toeing the party line. Step aside, and you’ll discover that not everything is rosy and balmy. Sweden is not an exception. Soviet Union also boasted tranquil and protected life – if you preferred not to see the prisons and labor camps (and, yes, those were conveniently tucked away in remote places).
When you’re taliking about “monopoly” making people to do this and that you’re forgetting that the monopoly is not an entity with its own superhuman life. In reality, this is just a bunch of people using collectivist laws to parasite on others.

So I do not think this is a straw man. Out there you’re only “free” as long as you’re marching in lockstep. This is not freedom at all. Being well-fed and tranquil is not freedom, it is simply a somewhat comfortable cage. And this good life is always only temporary, as more and more people discover that it is much better to be on the receiving side of collectivist looting than to be one of the donors. The sheep stays content, the less principled entrepreneurs join the looting (there’s always a lot of opportunities), and the more principled vote with their feet. This is apparently why there’s such an awful lot of Swedish expats here in US – not because they like the food or the local culture, but simply because they feel they were robbed blind back at home.

And, of course, I’m not assuming that the collectivists are wishing their victims bad. They may sincerely believe they’re doing good – but let me tell you, it doesn’t matter. I know that for sure, I was the recipient of this kind of love, and it left me with prematurely gray hair and racing heart when someone unexpectedly knocks on the door – and all that time I was told it’s for my own good, and people were genuinely concerned with my welfare, as they understood it: being a good meek fat sheep in the flock.

No, unless you have the freedom from collectivist impositions you’re not free at all. And panarchy does not provide that, simply because it is the same as the current system – sure, you can voluntarily choose the flavor of social-democracy or theocracy, but there’s no habitable place on this Earth where you can be left to yourself. The last time I checked only the most odious regimes restricted emigration, so we’re in “panarchy” already. Have fun.
Published: July 12, 2005 7:18 PM
Richard CB Johnsson
Dear avarros, of course taxation involves a threat of aggression on behalf of the monopolist government. I don’t deny that at all. But I believe I said that “believers into social-democratic, theocratic and other collectivist doctrines�? aren’t aggressive. I didn’t say that the government isn’t aggressive. Believers into social-democratic, theocratic and other collectivist doctrines are not the same thing as the government.The parasitical monopolist government might need collectivism to survive, but that doesn’t necessary imply that every collectivist supports the government or want to be a parasite. That’s a pretty strong assumption you make. I believe it is false.BTW, how come you pretend to know the reasons every Swede have for living in the US, indeed even claim it to be apparent? Are you not robbed blind over there as well? Why treat Swedes as a collective? 😉
You don’t like collectivist impositions (neither do I). But what about impositions in the name of individualism? For example, imposing individualist anarchism is also an imposition, right? Have you pondered that a collectivist might be afraid of your impositions?

And why do you repeat your claim that panarchy is the same as the current system? I believe I answered that silly claim. Why do you think there would be only flavor of “social-democracy or theocracy�? to choose from? Why not panarchies for individualists and collectivists of other kinds? Why would people not start new ones?

Straw man arguments or not, you still seems to dismiss panarchy without knowing anything about it. I won’t respond again but will instead give you the benefit of having the last word. Let’s see a comment from an informed and open mind. Now that would be fun!
Published: July 13, 2005 5:17 AM
Gian Piero de Bellis
I refer to some statements made by Averros in a previous message:”being a member of the most dangerous and warlike league is going to provide improved personal security –this is exactly the situation with gangs, where membership is to a large extent voluntary, but the non-members are being terrorized into joining one of the gangs.” (Posted by: averros at July 11, 2005 10:40 PM)
To me these statements appear based on assumptions that are not confirmed by historical data. Al Capone, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and those associated with those people did not enjoy improved personal security. Quite the opposite.
People living in Bern (no war for the last 200 years in Switzerland) enjoy more security than the Londoners or the New Yorkers.

As for the non-members being terrorized into joining one of the gangs, this is more descriptive of the current situation of territorial states (where you are automatically ascribed to a territorial power) than the situation characterized by voluntary membership or voluntary seclusion, like Thoreau before being visited by the tax man. People can call it anarchy, panarchy, polyarchy, libertarianism, personarchy, individualism, communitarianism or any other name. The only requirement being the existence of individual voluntarism.

To state that some communities with voluntary membership will then become violent and coerce people into joining them (assuming also implicitly that they will always succeed) is tantamount to say: don’t do anything, the usual shit (i.e. the present system of territorial states with their compulsory taxes) will be back sooner or later.
I am sorry Averros, but fatalism is not part and parcel of my beliefs. May be I have misunderstood you, but this is the impression you give me with your statements that I quoted at the beginning of my message.
Published: July 13, 2005 7:30 AM
Dwight Johnson
David White: I would add that I still think a Social Contract specifying the rules of conduct and binding the members of society accordingly would still be necessary.David, could you please start a new thread with this topic? I think it is an extremely important one, and terribly underemphasized. The “binding” of course would be voluntary, but the solidarity of such a voluntary organization could be extraordinarily powerful.
Published: July 13, 2005 10:54 AM
David White
Dwight,I’d be happy to start a new thread but don’t know how.
Published: July 13, 2005 7:48 PM
Dwight Johnson
We can take the discussion of Social Contract offline to my blog (unless someone would like to start a new thread here). To start the discussion, I’ve posted a sort of Paleo-Libertarian bill of rights.
Published: July 14, 2005 6:54 AM
RPM
Stephan,(I skimmed this thread and didn’t see anyone make my point yet, but perhaps I’m just repeating someone else…)Even if we confine ourselves to anarchic societies, I think the term “polycentric” differs from Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism. It seems that (at least in certain passages) Rothbard thinks the an-cap judges would be applying one grand body of law, an elaboration of his own work in Ethics of Liberty.
In contrast, Rothbard was horrified at the “consumer driven” rules of a David Friedmanesque system.

Now it’s true, I think the two are actually closer than either of these writers might themselves have thought. But nonetheless I do think “polycentric legal order” is different from “Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist order.”

Regarding the term, I also thought “anarcho-capitalist” sounded geeky when I first heard it. Also, a “capitalist” is not really someone who favors the system of capitalism, but rather one who owns capital.

My term du jour is “free market anarchy.”
Published: July 14, 2005 8:46 AM
David J. Heinrich
Prof. Murphy,I’d a rgue that Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalist order, or propertarianism, pure libertarianism (whatever you want to call it), is a standard against which to judge societies. I believe that market forces would probably push free market legal systems towards pure libertarianism. Furthermore, I think that a truly logical and consistent concern for justice will push all in such a direction.–Dave H.
Published: July 14, 2005 9:20 AM
Dwight Johnson
David Heinrich: I think that a truly logical and consistent concern for justice will push all in such a direction.Sir, am I detecting a certain amount of utopianism here? Since when has humanity ever been truly logical and consistent? Libertarians certainly accept the complexity of humans, and can accept as a result a variety of legal systems. The common values that form the heart of libertarian thought (the right of property, the right of liberty), as constricted as they are, still leave an enormous range of opportunity for interpretation. Polycentric law merely recognizes the diversity of humanity, and the right, if you will, of each to be wrong in his own way.
Published: July 14, 2005 9:51 AM
David J. Heinrich
Dwight,I’m not saying there won’t be any variation, and you’re right that even the common values at the heart of libertarianism leave a lot of room open for interpretation. What I am saying is that in a Stateless society, there will be a tendency towards the criminalization of (for example) murder, rape, robbery, etc.Various other issues with which we’re still struggling today — e.g., abortion, legal age of consent, etc — will likely be dealt with in varying ways in different courts. However, there will still be free market forces pushing towards the unification of law, and particularly the unification of it in correctness.
Different courts, and different covenants, may deal with these issues in different ways. The things guiding change will be the results, as subjectively evaluated, and the necessity of various protection agencies to link with one-another and have recourse when they disagree on a particular case (if it’s taken to both of them).
Published: July 14, 2005 10:27 AM
Dwight Johnson
David, I agree with much of what you said, yet I still sense a certain element of pre-judging in your statement “the unification of it in correctness”. Correct according to what or whom?
Published: July 14, 2005 3:03 PM
Larry N. Martin
I don’t know how David Heinrich will respond, but let me stick my neck out: Correct according to how much the people in a society value the laws and according to economic efficiency. For example, most people are going to favor laws against murder and robbery, and will be willing to pay for protection against murder and robbery. But how many people will favor laws against recreational drug use, and how much will they be willing to pay to enforce that?Given the decentralization involved, it’s possible that some communities may have laws against recreational drug use while others do not. As long as there’s freedom of movement, that’s okay. People can move to whichever community they prefer, and the community with the harsher laws will find it easier to enforce such laws.However, if the communities have a lot of contact with each other, visitors, trade, etc., then there will be more conflict over the difference in laws, making it more difficult and costly to enforce the harsher laws, creating incentives towards a liberalization of that community, to more closely match the laws of the other community.
Decentralization would still allow for diversity, especially where differing circumstances may apply in one community, but not in another community, because no such legal conflicts will arise–one community would have laws for such circumstances, while the other wouldn’t.
Published: July 14, 2005 4:03 PM
Dwight Johnson
Larry, what you say is true. However, about your statement, “People can move to whichever community they prefer”: one of the points being made in this thread about Polycentric law relates to non-territorial government. If you haven’t already, please read Richard CB Johnsson’s article about this. Why should a person need to relocate? There’s also an excellent article by a Canadian, Peter White (google “non-territorial federalism”).
Published: July 15, 2005 6:01 AM
Larry N. Martin
one of the points being made in this thread about Polycentric law relates to non-territorial governmentWhoops, you’re right. In that case, their would be even less chance that harsher laws could cost-effectively be enforced. There would simply be pressure towards standardization of the law. The standardization would tend towards what the majority of people want and can afford (economic limits). Even if we assume that most people would favor recreational drug laws, it would cost more to enforce such, and affect the ability to enforce more basic laws against murder and robbery. Harsher, more draconian laws are less cost-effective and less likely to be enforced, leading to a tendency that approaches greater justice. Admittedly, this is no guarantee that just law and arbitration would exist in AC, but the incentives for such would exist, and without the monopolization of force, these incentives would be stronger than the incentives for unjust law and arbitration. IMO, of course.
Published: July 15, 2005 9:28 AM
Stephan Kinsella
David White:

With all due respect, “what is being discussed” is NOT anarchy, and why libertarians persist in the self-defeating use a word that the dictionary defines quite clearly as “absence of law or government” is beyond me. It’s as if libertarians want to scare people away rather than attract them to our cause, which isn’t lawlessness but government without the monopoly on the use of force otherwise known as the State.
Moreover, why do libertarians persist in coupling the word anarchy with the word capitalism when the latter is now so identified with the crony capitalism of the Corporate State as to be indistinquishable from it, especially when every economic system beyond a subsistence economy is based on capital formation and is thus capitalistic?
Let me be blunt: Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer — a clumsy and ugly sounding one at that — that should be dispensed with accordingly. So how about a contest to come up with a correct — and marketable — term for government without a State? I’ve got one, but let’s hear from others first.

David: I dislike the wimpy term “polycentric.”

As Rand said:

The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: “Why do you use the word ‘selfishness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean? To those who ask it, my answer is: “For the reason that makes you afraid of it.”

We libertarians need to grab a pair.
Published: January 11, 2007 12:47 PM
David White
Wow, Stephan, out of the blue from some six months ago, when you sent me an obscenity filled email about people like me being p*ssies, who now need to “grab a pair.”But of course you’re right with your Rand quote, as fear is precisely the reaction we want from people when they hear the libertarian’s term for a market-based system of governance.And as they recoil from us, we can tell THEM what p*ssies they are. Brilliant!
Published: January 11, 2007 1:59 PM