Re: POLITICS -- Libertarian Anarchism

[Guest guest]

This is essentially an addendum to my last *long* post to Heidi, but I'm

essentially going to use it as an attempt to get to the crux of the issue and

sort

out the chaff--

It seems like the crux of the disagreement here is that the anti-anarchist

belief is that the State is the basis for *objective* law, and the only

mechanism by which it can be ensured that all property and persons are protected

equally. So, to the anti-anarchist, the question becomes: 'How can private law,

enforcement, and protection agencies work objectively rather than for their own

power, or to benefit their cronies?'

This rests on the false assumption that the State does what it claims to do--

that is, enforce its laws objectively.

A truly Libertarian society rests on the concept that Natural Law entitles a

person to her own person and property. Since each person can use their

property as they see fit, any law beyond this is essentially the private law

unique

to each piece of property. The Law that involves interactions with others is

simply the recognition of the law that person has set upon their own property.

So, we may ask the question whether a Libertarian society can ensure this

property is protected as well as under a State.

In fact, if you look at the State, the State does not even pretend to enforce

property rights equally:

--Firstly, the State does not consider itself bound to property rights. The

State can take your home, car, and cash balance, if it finds a given

contraband, such as cocaine, on your property. The State can tax you well

beyond what

is necessary to fulfill its duties to you. The State can counterfeit its own

money and essentially rob the populace further.

--Second, the State openly enforces property rights to a wide spectrum of

magnitudes. The State first divides people into classes with a progressive

income tax, and determines a different percentage of property each class is

allowed

to keep, despite it being their own property. The State then redistributes

this wealth not only on the basis of class, but on the basis of individual

appeals: tax breaks to specific corporations, bailouts, subsidies, etc.

--Third, in very violent areas, the police are largely unresponsive to

victims. According to people I've talked to from cities in my area, black

people

with little means in bad neighborhoods say that police simply ignore rape

accusations, for a personal example. Whether it is racism, or the fact that

certain

areas are just to risky to bother dealing with, the fact remains that

widespread areas, primarily poorer areas, are NOT serviced by the State in the

way

that classier, prettier, and whiter areas are.

-- Fourth, any police department or bureaucracy of any kind has a certain

degree of corruption and cronyism.

So, in sum, you claim that a private agency could work for its own power

rather than its consumers-- yet that's exactly what the state does; you claim

that

a private agency could treat its friends specially-- yet that's exactly what

the state does; you claim that some people wouldn't be able to " afford " the

protection of a private agency-- yet many, many, many people who are poor are

simply ignored by the State.

Under a private system, if you don't like the service you are getting, you

can simply opt to stop paying them. It would be widely recognized by the

community that you are dealing voluntarily with a private agency, whereas in

*our*

society, the populace considers the State to have a legitimate monopoly on its

functions. In short, any claim that can be made against a private system can

be made against the State, only under the private system, competition and the

profit motive not only increases the service and the efficiency of the

service, but eliminates the possibility of the State acting against its

customer,

since their is no public acceptance of its legitimacy to do so, and it is not

considered to have any " rights " whatsoever except to serve its customers for a

profit.

Chris