Reddit Reddit reviews Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice (Independent Studies in Political Economy)

We found 12 Reddit comments about Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice (Independent Studies in Political Economy). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Economic Conditions
Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice (Independent Studies in Political Economy)
Used Book in Good Condition
Check price on Amazon

12 Reddit comments about Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice (Independent Studies in Political Economy):

u/WilliamKiely · 9 pointsr/philosophy

> If there is a point at which utility out weighs human rights (an extreme example: killing one person to save the planet), then the state could [possibly] be justified in terms of its effects- despite the fact that from a rights based perspective the actions of tax collector and extortionist are morally equal.

Yes, you are correct. And note that I am a Huemerian anarchist libertarian agreeing with you. Huemer would agree as well.

Huemer critiques the rights-based approach to defending libertarianism himself by giving examples of scenarios in which he (and most people) believes that committing rights-violations is justified due to consequentialist considerations. See, for example, this part of a talk he gave titled Defending Libertarianism: The Common Sense Approach (summarized in next paragraph):

The first scenario Huemer describes is one in which a hiker lost in the woods and on the verge of starvation stumbles upon a cabin and decides to break in and steal some food. Even though this is trespassing and theft (rights-violations) Huemer holds that it is morally permissible for the hiker to commit these rights-violations because the outcome (surviving) is sufficiently better than it otherwise would have been if the hiker hadn't committed any rights-violations (starving to death).

However, Huemer is not a pure consequentialist--that is, he does not think that it is permissible to violate rights anytime doing so is likely to lead to a better outcome. It wouldn't be permissible to pick-pocket you on the street under normal circumstances, for example, even if the thief vowed to give the money he stole from you to an effective charity. The general rule to determine when rights-violations are justified is something like the following: Rights-violations are only justified if they are very likely to result in a much better outcome. Typically this occurs when rights-violations are necessary to avoid a disastrous outcome (like breaking into a cabin to avoid starving to death, or borrowing someone's car without their permission to rush a friend with a life-threatening emergency to the hospital).

The reason why I added the word "possibly" to your statement ("the state could [possibly] be justified in terms of its effects") is thus because the state could possibly be justified to avoid an inevitably disastrous Hobbesian anarchist outcome, but it remains to be seen that society without a state would actually necessarily be sufficiently bad to justify a state.

In fact, not only does it remain to be seen that a society without a state would inevitably be sufficiently disastrous to justify the rights-violations all state must commit in order to exist as states (at the very least: taxation and outlawing of competing defense agencies), but there is a very strong case that an anarchist society need not be anywhere near this awful. Huemer devotes the second half of The Problem of Political Authority summarizing this case. While Huemer's arguments are sufficient in my view, there are even more convincing analyses demonstrating the work-ability of an anarcho-capitalist system (see, for example, Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice.

(Aside: How bad would the stateless outcome have to be to justify a state? you might wonder. Huemer has said, and I agree, that there's no need to come up with a precise answer (at least, no need to do so in order to answer the question of whether one should embrace anarchist libertarianism or not) since "We're nowhere close to the case where government would be justified".)

> What if there is no moral basis for the state apart from practicality?

Suppose for the sake of argument that an anarcho-capitalist society would be worse than society with a state, but not much worse. If this were the case, then the state would be justified under pure consequentialism (what I take you to mean by "practicality" above).

But, as I said previously, Huemer and I (and most people) aren't pure consequentialists. On the contrary, the "common sense" view (to use Huemer's terminology[1]) is that rights-violations are only justified when the consequences resulting from committing them are much better than the consequences that could be achieved without committing them.

So, under this much less controversial "common sense" view, since an anarcho-capitalist society would not be much worse than a society with a state, then a state would not be justified, i.e. we should adopt the anarchist position.

[1] From a footnote in Ch. 1 of The Problem of Political Authority. Huemer writes: "Herein, I use ‘common sense’ for what the great majority of people are inclined to accept, especially in my society and societies that readers of this book are likely to belong to."

u/bames53 · 4 pointsr/GoldandBlack

I assume you're asking how that would be handled without a state. Of course the system I described could be implemented under a state and without implementing the entire anarcho-capitalist system, and in that case liability would be enforced just like any other liability is today in our current legal system. As for how it would be done without a state, that's covered by many descriptions of legal systems and enforcement under anarcho-capitalism:

u/TheGermanSpyNeetzy · 3 pointsr/GoldandBlack

No problem. Well in the comments here I point someone else to a source and a few legal systems. So, I suggest looking for that. It should only take a second. You can also google/YouTube the topic at hand and you will be met with a lot of introductory material. Going these routes will be far more comprehensive and easier than getting that info here on a thread.

Anyhow, here
are a few places to

u/Anenome5 · 1 pointr/Polycentric_Law

Not specifically. It is sort of an unspoken assumption in much of the philosophy of law in anarchist circles, that we could produce a variety-tolerant legal society in which many types of law could co-exist peacefully.

The idea that there's only one right kind of law tends to lend support to the idea that law should be forced on people, and supports legal centralization.

Law as an asymptotic approach to social problem solving, however, suggests that the ideal legal means for a society would be competing legal entities that encourage rapid iteration and legal experimentation, all things that a decentralized-law society allow.

There's a book collection of essays called "Anarchy and the Law" by Stringham, perhaps you could start there.

u/nickik · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

The best, because you get a big of everything is: Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice

It includes the most importend parts of some of the books you (and others) have allready posted and it also includes debates between AnCaps and Minarchist. It includes a intellectual history of the idea und much more. It is really a 'all in one'.

(Part of) Book Description:
> Section I, "Theory of Private Property Anarchism," presents articles that criticize arguments for government law enforcement and discuss how the private sector can provide law.

> In Section II, "Debate," limited government libertarians argue with anarchist libertarians about the morality and viability of private-sector law enforcement.

> Section III, "History of Anarchist Thought," contains a sampling of both classic anarchist works and modern studies of the history of anarchist thought and societies.

> Section IV, "Historical Case Studies of Non-Government Law Enforcement," shows that the idea that markets can function without state coercion is an entirely viable concept. Anarchy and the Law is a comprehensive reader on anarchist libertarian thought that will be welcomed by students of government, political science, history, philosophy, law, economics, and the broader study of liberty.

u/anak_jakarta · 1 pointr/indonesia

I think its a very low misconception regarding libertarian against crime. It doesn't mean libertarian okay with crime, you can view this video regarding basic libertarian approach with crime.

Further read would be this. I seriously think that the world is a better place if we put libertarian approach against crimes/coercions.

u/selfoner · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism 101:

u/ChristopherBurg · 1 pointr/twincitiessocial

> Oh so you are just a crazy radical that wants change but you don't really know what the change is.

Actually I'm a crazy radical that knows what the change should be, a society where the initiation of violence is prohibited by all parties. This necessarily requires the elimination of the state as it is an entity built upon initiating violence.

> You will never be happy, you are just some crazy guy who "wants to do his thing" or you are some idealist that envisions an utopia of peaceful civilizations working together for no other reason than to maintain peace and promote humanity.

Your assumption are almost adorable, although wrong. Utopia doesn't exist, there will always be conflict amongst people. A stateless society doesn't mean one without violent, just one where the initiation of violence is prohibited.

If somebody brings violence against you it is your right, as a self-owner, to retaliate or seek just compensation for the damages done to you. A good read on the subject is The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard. If you're willing to hit up a library or plunk down some change Anarchy and the Law is also an excellent read as are the works of Lysander Spooner (which are freely available). His No Treason series do a great job of decimating the idea of "social contract."

Either way I don't believe in utopia, but I do believe in a society where violence isn't the answer to all problems. More can be accomplished through market forces and mutual aid than state violence.

> Both of these are foolish and childish to believe in.

Because medieval Iceland, medieval Ireland [PDF], and the old American West [PDF] never happened? Stateless societies have thrived in human history, thus your statement is without ground.

> There will always be leaders, no matter what.

You're mistaking voluntaryism (what I subscribe to) with traditional collectivist anarchism. Volutnaryism doesn't believe in the abolition of hierarchy, leaders can exist but they have no powers beyond anybody else. In other words you can choose to work for somebody, or to follow the plans of another, but you can't be coerced into doing so, your decision to do so must be voluntarily made.

> You want no government?

You're mistaking the state for government (not unusual, we use the terms interchangeably in our society). I believe in voluntary governance, as stated above you can follow leaders, there would be private courts, and arbitration is entirely legal. What isn't acceptable is one or more individuals declaring themselves rule and forcing others to obey their decrees.

> Then someone will become strong enough to force you under their control and then that will be the government.

The three previously mentioned societies would beg to differ. Refutations of your claims can be found within the linked material, read and learn.

u/danielzopola · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I would like to add couple more titles nobody has mentioned yet, but also worth reading.

  • Anarchy and Law by Edward P. Stringham

  • There are couple of titles written by Stefan Molyneux you might find interesting.

  1. Everyday Anarchy: The Freedom of Now
  2. Practical Anarchy: The Freedom of the Future

u/oolalaa · 1 pointr/ukpolitics

Sorry, as well as Benson I really should have recommended Anarchy and the Law, a collection of 40-odd essays on private property/free market anarchism. That's definitely what you should get if you're interested. It even has a glowing recommendation by Roderick Long..

> This nearly 700-page book is quite simply THE definitive collection on free-market anarchism. Its forty chapters include contributions from Randy Barnett, Bruce Benson, Bryan Caplan, Roy Childs, Anthony de Jasay, David Friedman, John Hasnas, Hans Hoppe, Jeff Hummel, Don Lavoie, Murray Rothbard, the Tannehills, and many more. (Full disclosure: it also contains a chapter by me.) In addition, it features historical classics by Voltairine de Cleyre, Gustave de Molinari, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker, among others. It covers both moral arguments and economic ones; it ranges over both abstract theory and historical examples. It even includes important criticisms of market anarchism, like Tyler Cowen's and Robert Nozick's, along with anarchist replies.

u/PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 1 pointr/EnoughLibertarianSpam

Because polycentric legal systems are completely different than monarchies.... You should read up on what you are criticizing; this book would be a good place to start.