I support a minimal government that takes care of defense and judiciary. Even in judiciary the laws should be as minimal as to uphold the liberty of the individual. It should collect taxes specifically for defense and running judiciary and not for anything else.
Till few days back I thought I should fight only against socialists to prove the benefits of this model of governance. But now I see formidable opposition from anarcho-capitalists. This post is mainly to defend minarchy from anarcho-capitalists not socialists.
1) Anarcho-Capitalists opine that defense is not needed and everything can be controlled by free market. But this holds good only if all the countries are anarcho-capitalists, not in the current situation. China can any day attack India and capture Arunachal pradesh completely, Kashmir can easily be taken by Pakistan.
2) Anarcho-Capitalists tell that even in the current conditon where we have Government based countries all around and anarcho-capitalist country at the center, Private Defense (Lets say pd) systems can exist to defend. I ask what difference does it make between a government based defense and private company based defense? Then they say monopoly is avoided. But I think in defense there should be monopoly, here are my arguments:
a. Suppose a part of Rajasthan border is defended by pd1, and a part of Punjab border is defended by pd2. Now they have to share information about the insurgencies in respective area, since these are different defense companies what guarantee is there that they share it?
b. Suppose heavy attack has happened on pd1’s jurisdiction and it needs more armaments, can pd2 share its arms with pd1? Under what protocol? Decided by which contract and by which justice system?
c. Suppose a part of a hill is defended by pd1 and another part of the hill is defended by pd2, how do you manage this?
If Anarcho-Capitalists say they have to co-operate, who makes those co-operation rules and based on which law? Even judiciary is private in anarcho capitalism and caters only to Natural laws based on facts, not positive laws.
“DEFENSE should be a monopoly, it instills a sense of nationality in soldiers which is essential in this field, remeber they have to be ready to die. Nobody dies for a private defense company, people die for country and only government represents a country.It also avoids the above problems.”
Polycentric Law System : Multiple Private Law Systems (Lets say pls) is clearly beyond my capability of understanding.
Suppose x and y are two individuals who have a dispute. x has killed y’s brother z. Now x and y goto pls1. pls1 analyses the case and finds that z had tried to kill x’s friend w
and hence to protect w , x killed z.
pls1 says the following:
a. killing is always a criminal act
b. x should have protected w without violence, to prevent one death (that of w) x caused another death(that of z).
c. x should have judged why z attacked w.It could be that z is justified in killing w (for whatever reason) who is x to judge that z should also be killed?
So it awards 10 years imprisonment to x.
x is unhappy and goes to pls2.
pls2 says the following:
a. Killing one person to save another is a crime only if both are unknown.
b. Killing one person to save another is fine, when the person being attempted to kill is a well known to the other person (family member or a friend or an acquaintance)
So as per pls2 x is free to go.
Now should this ping-pong go on or should their be a higher court that decides which law system is good? If there is a higher court is it not a monopoly? Cant the government provide it?
I need a perfect answer for this by anarcho-capitalists, arguments like “in the long run one law system will be favored against the other” will not be acceptable because
1) Injustice is not allowed even in one single case, theorems get unproved with just one contradiction.
2) If this long run favours a favourable law system, is that not a monopoly? Why cant we have that monopoly right from the beginning?
Update after Discussion in Indian Libertarians Group
I had some strong opposition from Indian Libertarians on this post. All the comments were on the defense part. On Judiciary I got a feedback that I have not understood polycentric law system and hence whatever conflicts I presented above do not correlate with it. I admit I have not read the formal text books on the topic yet. So I agreed I’ll read it again to see if I have missed something.
For the comments on defense, I summarise my answers here (Complete discussion available in the IL Facebook Group)
AnCap does not say defense is not needed, but they are against the monopoly of defense.
Thanks for this confirmation. I got this notion because some members in IL told that Switzerland escaped WW II only because they were in free trade, and hence no enemies. But if you agree defense is needed in AnCap, I’m happy that we atleast concur here.
AnCap does not see defense service as a specialised service but a service similar to banking/insurance/internal security and as such they can always be better served by a private company.
There are differences between defense and other services.
* While all other services deal with customers within the country – manufacturing products for them, provide service for them etc – they do it without causing any physical harm to
members of any another country, a defense organization has to fight against forces outside the country to serve its customers. It affects foreign relations and it is a very very sensitive field.
*We cannot afford a defense agency leaking internal secrets. This is one of the prime reason why we cannot afford private defense agencies.They are free to goto any country after their contract termination.
*Decisions have to be taken in unison. With private defense agencies each one of them is independent to attack or be at peace at its own wish. Eg. Private Defense Agency in Gujarat might want to attack Pakistan without any threat, Private Defense Agency in Kashmir might not opt to have any defense at all and wish to have open border with Pakistan. This is as good as loosing Kashmir.
*In pure Ancap world without any intervention any private company from any other country can offer the defense service, this also is a security threat.
An army does not need patriotism, just respect to the profession is enough. There is no necessity of nationality and hence a monolithic defense organization led by Govt.
I may agree to the concept of “respect to profession”. But consider this, there could be people who join this profession when they dont find any opportunity elsewhere. And when they are in, they have to fight whether they respect their profession or whether they have patriotism. I want to know what our soldiers think about this. As far as I know the motivation for a person to stick to army (unless forced) is patriotism. Who would otherwise risk his/her life for the convenience of majority of people who are not at all related to him/her?
A decentralised defense service, provided by private companies offers better competition and quality.
A defense organization should see its opponent as competitor not its partner. A private defense company need not go on race in obtaining a missile like Trishul just because a neighbouring private defense company has more such missiles.This leads to wastage of money. But it has to have a competing missile w.r.t that of neighbouring country’s.
*Competition results in arms race within private defense agencies.
*The competition among internal private defense companies may itself become hostile that affects their co-ordination.
Co-ordination can be managed by having a defense rating agency. For better rating they have to share resources and information.
*Who should periodically check this rating and then hire/fire defense agencies? Is it all civilians, or some of them? Who are those some people, elected members, elites? Can this result in Nepotism? Is this practical?
*What do you mean by sharing
–Share people: All soldiers should follow same protocols (trained in a similar way), and have similar hierarchy otherwise it causes issues within team.
–Sharing of equipments : This means using common equipments, same tankers, same aircrafts, same ciphers, same radio frequencies. What is the USP of a private defense agency then, just the administration?
–How quickly they should share teams across two difference agencies during an attack? What is the turn around time. For better results TAT has to be zero.It would be zero only when they are so open that they dont have to wait for any permission from their respective seniors. If you have such a good sharing, it has to be almost centralised.
A monopoly of defense can turn itself against the civilians as they did in Pakistan. It is dangerous.
Even a private defense company can turn against the civilians, what stops them? It is more dangerous here because two regions having private defense can attack each other without any central control. What stops TN with its own defense attacking against Karnataka with it own defense (States are hypothetical, you can invent any other region with a different name).
Private Defense Agencies break Monopoly
A commodity manufacturer is not a monopoly because simultaneously the customer has access to two varieties which he can compare. But when a customer at a time has access to one only one supplier it is a monopoly. I agree that by having private defense agencies we can achieve decentralization but we cannot avoid monopoly unless you have policies for contract termination of a private defense.
*Such a termination is a security threat as explained above
*Uneccessarily it puts pressure on the neighbouring defense agencies
*The absence of a defense agency/transition from one defense agency to another would result in the most weakest part of the defense, prone to attack. Such an attack is not just harmful to the concerned region but to the entire country.