Robert Nozik, author of the fine Anarchy, State, and Utopia, seems to end up with a minimal "state" primarily enforcing contracts and protecting property. I was sad to read that he recently joined Hayek & Keynes "in the long run", i.e. dead. (I was looking for info on "life expectancy at age 50," or 60, or 70, but didn't quite find it in a quick search, prolly my own user error, but didn't find help on the NCHS site, either)
As a "minarchist", generally believing in a minimal state, I no longer have as much patience for the (potentially endless) discussions on the different endpoints: if we are in agreement, or very close, that the current government is too big, it seems to me that any viable path towards Anarcho-Capitalism requires many steps. Each step is, in a certain sense, the "end" of that step, so discussing alternative steps and their economic implications is more interesting for me. > Subject: monopoly justice vs free market justice > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:54:22PM -0800, Fred Foldvary wrote: > > --- Eric Crampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> While we're at it, why don't we make it illegal for people > to kill each > >> other. If it were illegal, with stiff fines, we'd surely > get rid of > >> murder. > > > > Do you deny that we have less murder with laws penalizing > it than if we had > > no such laws? > > > > If so, do you wish to eliminate all criminal codes? > > > I don't know about Eric, but I definitely think that > there would be less murders if there were no laws against them, > and similarly for robbery, rape, fraud, etc. > Crimes would instead be settled in civil courts, > and murderers would be greatly indebted to the heirs, > and the fact of criminals paying back their debt > would make the whole process economically efficient. Settling crimes in any court, civil or criminal, essentially requires a standard, like "thou shall not kill", or "thou must fulfill contractural obligations". Whether they are called codes, norms, commandments, customs, traditions or what-not, they define crimes, and they are essentially laws. And we should use "law" for those actions which, when violated, create a situation of injustice that courts can act upon. Usually injustice is fairly black & white. Justice, on the other hand, is a "grey" area (I changed my name partly for this reason.) I support punishment; and segregation from society -- especially after 3 or more violations. I more strongly support restitution, especially in the robbery, fraud, "monetary" crimes. The question of whether, for a murder, more punishment, more rehabilitation, more restitution, or more segregation is better for the victim; the victim's family, the rest of society, and the murderer and his (or her) family--that question is more interesting to me than mono-justice vs market justice. And what I support most strongly now, is a democratic change to allow more experimentation. Also, legalization of drugs would most greatly reduce murders. Finally, to recall the SPAM issue, clearly the monopoly system would, if implemented, fail to be protective but increase everybody's problems. The "free market" system will, over time, work better -- most "spam" is actually sales info of one kind or another, and they have some interest in mostly reaching interested folks. On the other hand, I always remember: "how many free marketeers does it take to change a light bulb?" Tom Grey ... none, the free market will take care of it.
