One of the biggest fears for people when I bring up a completely free society that is not shackled down by government is the fear of an ensuing chaotic world. I truly believe that it is a legitimate concern but a concern not based off any logical reasoning.
The idea is based off that since the State has ultimate authority over any certain territory the majority of people would be afraid to infringe on the rights of the others since the State would come and make you pay for said actions. If you rob/murder/rape someone the police come and try to find the perpetrator and arrest him. This incentive to not infringe on the rights of others is not profound in a free society so there must be chaos and no mutual agreements among the populace.
What a lot of people miss out on is there are forces much stronger than the State imposed prisons. When people are arrested most are usually let out later regardless of being in a state of mind that is productive for society because of some subjective prison sentencing.
I can easily bring up two forces that could be a possibility in a free society that have happened historically and happen today in stateless societies. One of these forces is a market force based off a type of insurance and the other is based of ostracizing which labels people as outcasts.
The market forces that can be enforced have different beliefs. For example Murray Rothbard believes that it would be in the best interest of the individual to purchase insurance just in case he was cheated i.e. stolen from, raped, etc... Robert P. Murphy a current Anarcho Capitalist believes there would be an incentive for individuals to purchase a so called "voucher system" of insurance where this agency would "vouch" for an individual and if he was to infringe on the rights of others or break contract it would be that agency to give retribution to the victim/victims instead of the insurance agency of a victim to give retribution. Although no one can possibly say which system would emerge I believe that Murphy has the most plausible solution to a free market response with the voucher system.
This has very important implications in a society with no government. If you have an agency that basically vouches for you it is in their best interest to make sure you are someone worth vouching for. If not it would cost them money to pay retribution if said person violated someone else. The more risky you were as an individual the more costly your premiums would cost so it would be in the individual's best interest to be as risk-free as possible. If you were thought to be a risk-free person and you violated this trust that the agency had in you they could revoke their vouch for you and you would have a hard time finding an agency to continue to vouch for you. When this happens a market force would void you from being able to belong in a society where a coherent voucher system existed.
Now perhaps let's say the voucher system didn't quite work out for a certain case. This case is one though where society realized that the ruling, the ruling based off this blog post of mine, didn't make any sense. The agency could say that a judge ruled in favor of their client and therefor did not owe the would be victim any retribution. If the society realized that the judge made a faulty decision the society itself could ostracize the perpetrator and not allow this person on their property. So society could easily account for bad rulings or even rulings that might have influenced by money.
What we must realize is that comparing apples to apples, the state vs a free society, the free society would be able to provide a more moral system of justice. There would be no anarchy within this anarchic system. There would only be free people freely deciding how to best live their own lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment