Time: Mon Oct 28 16:23:46 1996
To: "Cravens, Roger D." <rbg3@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: refused for cause
Cc: 
Bcc: 

At 08:31 AM 10/28/96 EST, you wrote:
>
>From: Douglas Friedman
>Subject: Re: Liberty and use of force
>Date: Sunday, October 27, 1996 12:22AM
>
>
>James Basili wrote in defense of anarchism:
>
>>Under anarchy, there could simply be some companies that patrol the
>streets (after getting an agreement with the streets' owners) to look
>out for "crime" (whatever is not desired by the owners really). The
>point here is not to describe specifically how such a company would
>work or be organized, but to plant the idea that police companies could
>exist, privately. They could be small and city-wide, or perhaps large
>continent-wide organizations. There would naturally be several, with
>agreements between each other, etc. etc. If there was only one, that
>company would run the risk of becoming a government. Think of a
>government as a security company with a monopoly on force in an area.
>Our anarchical security companies would not be able to enforce
>monopolies, they would not be able to prevent other companies from
>running their security businesses. The competition, this "separation of
>powers" (or Power, really) would mean less abuse of power.
>
>     <snip>
>>"But," you ask, "How could this anarchical defense stuff ever work? What
>would happen when one security company needed to chase a criminal into
>another's territory? Or what if two security companies got into a
>disagreement and started a war? Don't we maintain order by centralizing
>power and having a set system for its use?"
>
>>Good questions. I can't answer all of it in specific detail since,
>obviously, there isn't a currently existing anarchical society I can
>point to and say, "see, that's how."
>
>>One answer is for me to say, "What makes the Detroit Police Department
>cooperate with the New York Police Department, or the FBI? I mean, what
>really?" The laws? The Constitution? In some sense, sure. But in
>another sense, those are just documents--paper. The different entities I
>mention above, like the NYPD, are analogous to security companies. They
>cooperate with each other because they have *agreed* to, because it is in
>their interest to cooperate and live in a peaceful society, not a violent
>one. Security companies would too. They could draw up
>treaties/agreements/contracts between themselves to order their relations.
>These would be as binding as our laws or Constitution. Any agreement is
>only binding because people decide to follow it, after all.
>
>[rest deleted]
>
>The basic problem with this is that it assumes good will on the part of the
>security agencies. What if a robber from Area A mugs someone in Area B and
>then flees to Area A, which is policed by the Cosa Nostra Security Agency,
>of which the robber is a member?  Plus, even if Security Company A is on
>the level, if Smith (the robber) is one of their clients, they are likely
>to be less than eager to turn him over to Company B (what if the charges
>are false? Smith could sue them for breach of contract, or lead a move to
>switch from Company A to Company C, which promises to better protect people
>from outside police forces).
>
>As for how anarchy might work, one might look at medieval Iceland, which
>had a court to determine right and wrong, but battles sometimes had to be
>fought to enforce a court ruling (might makes right).
>
>No, anarchy is anything but an appealing or practical prospect.
>
>Doug Friedman
>
>
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail