The Bigger Gun

[Thesemindz]

Reposted from www.ownyourfreedom.blogspot.com for explanatory purposes. Originally written November 3, 2008 by Rob Sandwell.



The Bigger Gun part I


The bigger gun. This is one of the first and most common challenges offered by those who are new to the idea of anarcho-capitalism. It is asked, in one form or another, whether in a system devoid of the protections afforded to the citizens of the state anyone would be safe from the violence perpetrated upon them by others. Essentially, the argument is that only the presence of the state, and its massive law enforcement apparatus, spares us from being constantly preyed upon by violent men.

First, let's examine the premise. The proponent of this position is arguing that without government to protect us, evil men would immediately take whatever they desired through force, and there would be no way to stop them, because no matter your force of arms, someone with a bigger gun could always overcome you. It is only the overwhelming force of the state, through its police and military might, which prevents this from happening immediately. Right now. This very minute.

On its face, this seems a frightening proposition. Especially to a people who have been taught most of their lives to appeal to a government authority when confronted with danger. In school, when confronted with a bully, tell your teacher. In life, when confronted with violence, call the police. In business, when confronted with injustice, write your congressman. The lesson being constantly taught and reinforced is that the government is the only legitimate authority empowered to resolve conflict. And, having been taught thusly, it is understandable that people would accept this as fact. So, lacking that government authority to whom they must appeal, and seeing no other alternative, they are afraid.

This argument usually begins with the proposal that your neighbor, lacking resources, would use force to seize yours. Then, it is extrapolated from that point to involve the next business, city, state, and country over, until we are continuously preyed upon by criminals, terrorists, and mobs, which are then of course preyed upon by bigger, stronger, criminals, terrorists, and mobs, until all mankind is embroiled in constant violence and chaos. And only the government prevents this.

This position is somehow inviting to many who are antagonistic to the idea of anarcho-capitalism. But its premise is deeply flawed. It would seem that proponents of this argument believe that society is so rife with evil men that only the “thin blue line” protects every day citizens from being victims of crime, and our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are constantly in jeopardy. If this is indeed the case, it would seem to make the argument against central authority, not for it.

If society is so filled with evil men, surely they would quickly overpower any government, especially a representative one, and so assume authority to rape and pillage under color of law. If instead, there is no such glut of evil men, then the argument fails on its face, and, at least with regards to this argument, we have proven no need for central authority.

There are evil men, and there will continue to be evil men regardless of the type of society in which we live, this is reality. The idea that most men are evil, and that evil is only held in check by the constant threat of state authority is simply not reality. All people spend the vast majority of their lives in a state of anarchy. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you what to eat, whom to marry, where to work, and when to sleep. You make thousands of decisions, every day, with no consideration what so ever of the possible government response. And while you may even do some greedy things, and some mean spirited things, and some dishonest things, you are not raping, murdering, and defrauding your fellow man with your every thought and deed.

The idea that it is government which prevents violence, and that without it crime would be rampant, is unsupported by several facts. Firstly, any person with more force than you can take your rights away now. Right now. If someone walked up to you with a gun and demanded the computer on which you are reading this, no government would prevent them. They could take your property, and kill you, and no one will protect you. It is your responsibility, and only yours, to protect yourself. Always. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. It is established law, and it is the natural order. You must defend yourself.

So in reality, the government doesn't protect you, it instead arrives after you've been the victim of a crime, and investigates that crime and attempts to capture the perpetrator. Some would argue that it doesn't even do that, but for now, we'll grant the premise that they are legitimately trying to solve crimes. However, in reality, the vast majority of crimes, even violent crimes, go unsolved. In fact, nearly 80% of crimes go unsolved, with only 55% of violent and 84% or property crimes being solved. So even if we alter the argument from the government preventing crime to the government resolving crime, we see that we are still not adequately served by the state.

So then the argument must shift once again to the idea that the threat of falling into that small minority of crimes which the government solves is a deterrent against criminal action. However, if this is true, then why do we have prisons all over the country which are overflowing with criminals? Either the possibility of capture is a poor deterrent, or we are to believe that it is a highly effective deterrent, and there are simply a huge number of potential criminals who behave out of fear. In fact, studies show that the threat of arrest and imprisonment is a poor deterrent, notice specifically where it says,

“None of the analyses found imprisonment to reduce recidivism. The recidivism rate for offenders who were imprisoned as opposed to given a community sanction were similar. In addition, longer prison sentences were not associated with reduced recidivism. In fact, the opposite was found. Longer sentences were associated with a 3% increase in recidivism.”
​

In fact, specific preventative action, such as closed circuit cameras, on site security, and armed citizens, is a better deterrent against criminal action. Take special note of the table where alarm systems, armed citizens, and security cameras, all rank higher amongst convicted criminals as deterrents than active police patrols do.

Not only is government obviously an unreliable defender of your rights, the idea that crime is rampant is also false. In fact, in 2007, the estimated chance of being the victim of a violent crime was less than five tenths of one percent. Yet the fear that many people have of being the victim of this crime is so pervasive, that they are willing to trade freedom for the illusion of security. In reality, the number of deaths caused by governments throughout the twentieth century alone surpasses a quarter billion, dwarfing even the most inflated criminal statistics, and far beyond the scope of even the most dedicated criminal mind.

So we see that it is not the state which protects us from and prevents crime, it is in fact our own actions. So what actions could we take which would prevent the rampant crime which people fear? What actions are people taking already every day?

What actions would you take to defend your life, or your spouse's, or your children's?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[Thesemindz]

Originally written November 4, 2008 by Rob Sandwell.



The Bigger Gun part II


Yesterday I presented you with The Bigger Gun argument. Essentially, that without the state, your rights would be constantly imperilled by anyone who was able to exert greater force than you. Today I will respond to that arguement.

There are many actions we can take to make ourselves safe. Firstly, we can prepare for our own defense. An armed citizenry is the primary defense against violent crime and foreign invasion. Throughout history, it has always been the bulwark against personal victimization and the aggression of nations. It was one of the key assumptions by our military which discouraged the invasion of Japan in WWII, and it was a contributing factor to Hitler's decision not to invade Switzerland during the same war.

Secondly, people would provide for their common defense. They did before the widespread practice of government law enforcement. It's in their best interest. In fact, they still do, in the form of neighborhood watch organizations, community activism, and concerned citizen groups.

Thirdly, they would purchase security. Private security is already available, and in fact, is the most widely practiced form of security enforcement. Think for one moment, about the number of police employed in your city. Now think about the number of private security officers employed in the same area. Every large business, school, bank, hospital, office building, sports arena, and parking garage employs private security, in addition to many smaller businesses, restaurants, and venues.

Believing that people will do other than provide for their defense, individually, collectively, and commercially, is to believe that people would willingly sacrifice their security rather than cooperate in order to create an environment which would enable the safe exchange of ideas, goods, and services, free from fear of violence and fraud. We may be animals, but we are thinking animals, and over time, we have formulated many systems to provide economic and social stability, this process would not suddenly cease without the influence of government. In point of fact, I believe it would flourish in a free marketplace.

Some argue that private security firms would be de facto mercenary organizations, employed by greedy individuals and fielded to violently seize the property and rights of free peoples. At first, this seems a likely result of privatization, but under closer scrutiny, it is extremely unlikely.

The cost of fielding an armed force of any size for aggressive purposes is hugely expensive. There would be the cost of training, arming, and providing for a large number of men, all costs passed on to the customer, as well as additional costs associated with the greater danger of aggressive as opposed to defensive action. Even governments are unable to absorb these costs without diffusing them amongst the entire taxpaying base, and even then the costs are crippling. Criminal organizations are only able to do so because the prohibition of many of their goods and services leads to demand side profit margins of multiple tens of thousands of percents. The idea that private individuals would absorb that cost in order to potentially steal the assets of others is unrealistic. Additionally, since private security firms would be competing for business, launching aggressive campaigns would immediately increase the market share of their competitors by forcing their potential victims to seek protection. The cost of taking through force that which is the property of another quickly surpasses the cost of negotiating honestly and acquiring property legitimately.

Additionally, in a stateless society, while there may be no state law enforcement, there would still be repercussions for acting in an immoral fashion. Individuals who made a habit of behaving in a violent or fraudulent manner could be denied even basic services such as food, housing, clothing, utilities, and transportation. Would you allow a known and unrepentant rapist to eat at your restaurant? Or a serial murderer to rent your studio apartment? Companies which behaved rapaciously would face similar penalties. The market already punishes the behavior of those companies which harm others, but the persons directly responsible for those harms are often shielded from personal liability by corporate protections.

Corporations are state enterprises. In exchange for protection from personal liability, companies pay higher taxes to the state and create fictitious entities which assume liability for harm. Then, when individuals seek restitution against the company, they sue the fictitious corporate entity instead of the individual actors responsible. Shifting liability away from individuals and onto fictitious entities is both immoral, and dangerous, as it further separates consequence from action and creates the incorrect impression that individuals are not personally responsible for the harm they commit. Without corporate protection, business owners would act in a more responsible fashion, and be much less likely to cause harm through action or inaction.

If they did, the market would have a response for that too. There is already an industry for consumer reports. There are companies whose only business is to inform the public about the good and bad practices of everyone from Microsoft to Subway. There are consumer report magazines, websites such as Angie's List, radio shows like that hosted by Clark Howard, and innumerable other avenues to get the information to the public. Additionally, there are many private companies who test and certify the safety of products and the truthfulness of companies' claims. In a stateless society these industries would flourish, as lacking any government authority to report their problems too, individuals would be by necessity more apt to research the reputation of those companies with which they did business, and would punish companies whose actions they found unconscionable.

Remember, without the sponsorship and protection of the state, companies would find it far more difficult to grow to the size and scope we see today. Businesses would only be able to achieve such status by consistently offering their customers a quality product at a competitive price over a course of years. Are we then to believe that, after reaping the benefits of positive business practices for so long, they would suddenly become evil enterprises and devote all their resources to the subjugation of the masses?

Even if they did, each individual employee of that company would be liable for any harm he committed, thereby removing many of the laborers necessary to commit great acts of oppression. Additionally, they would immediately lose their customer base, and by extension their operating capital, and give rise over night to a number of entrepreneurs who recognized a need for private security and moved to fill it. No company would survive such a move, and their competition would be more than happy to absorb their market share. Unless we are to believe that even in the face of that subjugation, people would continue to do business with that company, and thereby supply it with the very resources it needed to further subjugate them.

No, only the state is able to pull off that magic trick. By controlling a monopoly on force, education, currency, and the legal system, they are able to compel, through fear mongering, economic manipulation, indoctrination, and intimidation, an entire society to not only willingly subject themselves to slavery, but to work every day to fund the system of slavery under which they toil, and to decry any who would suggest that individual freedom might be better than collective oppression.

So the bigger gun argument eventually devolves into one in which you have on one side those who support a system of unreliable crime investigators, who fail to prevent or deter crime, which is supported by theft and fraud on the part of that organization, being the state, which purports to protect you from those very indignities, while on the other side you have those who support a system where both crime is deterred and honesty encouraged, while also removing much of the motivating economic factors which lead to crime by eliminating the state and putting the full burden of the cost of criminal activity on the individual, and which is supported through voluntary contracts which are competed for by a variety of security firms who are constantly seeking to improve the value of their product, as well as its price.

In the final analysis it would seem that to some, it is better to be a slave because most of the time, it's not so bad, and while I can't actually do anything about it, I can complain, as long as I don't complain too loudly, and if I'm murdered someday, as long as it wasn't the government who was responsible, they might find out who killed me and he might face some form of punitive justice, which would all make it worthwhile in the end because I'm afraid that I might someday be the victim of something which, statistically speaking, there is almost no chance of experiencing, and I don't believe that I, nor anyone else, is capable of defending themselves.

And, believe it or not, I'm actually alright with that argument. People have the right to make themselves slaves.

But what right do they have to make others slaves as well?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism