ryan93 wrote:
Quote:
I still say the Friedmanite (David, not Milton) notion of a polycentric legal system handled by private firms is either incoherent or, in practice, indistinguishable from the current system.
I agree, the formation of a legal system under anarchy is a difficult problem to solve. The best I can imagine is a consensus based, democratic legal system (which is still pretty far off what we actually have today), but that would still lead to people violently imposing their will on others, which is one of the things fundamentally wrong about the current system. Minimal Legislation could be advocated, but that could prove a slippery slope. I don't think there would complete chaos in the absence of a legal system, as people could forcibly defend themselves and their property, but its certainly not a theory I'd like to test.
IMO, there are two major problems with the application of an anarchist state :
-- What to do with stupid, uneducated people? Anarchism works fine when people are intelligent, noble and courageous. However, in reality there are many people who don't posess some or all of these qualities and both religion and ideology were invented to keep these people in line. Anarchism would imply a lack of authority and I seriously question what would happen to these people.
-- How to go beyond the city state? When you can practically bring the people together in a stadium to debate on issues, then direct democracy in a leaderless system can work. However, in a city like New York you'd already lack that possibility and on a regional or national level it's even worse. Modern technology may be able to bridge the gap but then another issue is how to allign the major cultural differences of such a large number of people without ending up with a petty majority ruled system where no one actually agrees with the majority of the legislation.
19 Jan 2011, 6:34 pm
