Time: Mon Oct 28 15:35:28 1996 To: "Cravens, Roger D." <rbg3@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: REFUSED FOR CAUSE Cc: Bcc: TAKE ME OFF YOUR LIST, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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