[Note: This chapter is available on the web]
A Single Chapter Analysis from David Friedman's
"Machinery of Freedom" - "Police, Courts, and Laws -- On the Market"
One of the initial concepts that is made in this chapter is that without
government alternative mechanisms need to be created to resolve crime. But
what is 'crime' in such an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia? With no common limits
across all sub-cultures, it becomes the opinion of the individual. So, in
fact the contracts we are making are between individual who might have
oppossing views. As a result 'crime' simply means 'difference of opinion'.
Now, Mr. Friedman never comes right out and says this. The best we get is
the observation that there will be diametrically opposite views. To resolve
these conflicts he invokes the concept of an arbitration agent. A party who
sits between the two conflicting sides and helps develop a mutually
acceptable solution. There is never any discussion about, let alone even
recognition of, this problem. What if one or both parties don't want to
arbitrate? History is repleat with examples.
His suggestion is an auction, but a very special auction. An auction where
we get to pick from the market of courts the particular view we want (eg
Hell's Angels Arbitrage & Court). His example of capital v anti-capital
crime where we pay off the pro-capital contengent with a bribe of 'no court
costs' to get the case decided in a anti-capital court. I suspec that
considering the prize is a mans life, they'll want more than no court costs.
Clearly Mr. Freidman's plea that we believe in auctions that bid down is
stretching credularity more than a little.
His examples of how the Anarcho-Capitalist process will alleviate the
'physical coercion' of the centralized models is as considered. The example
given is a video recording of a person taking a television, and what if the
person doesn't play? Then a bunch of very brawny persons related to Guido
will come for a short active visit. Some avoidance. No training, no rights,
no protections. No limits.
No mention is made of the ease at which this system may be manipulated with
respect to arbitration ad nauseum. With all parties paying bills, except the
arbitrage agency, it's no mystery where the vast majority of arbitration
participants will end up, the poor house, or dropping the issue figuring the
cost to replace the television is better than paying to get the old one back.
What examples are given are weak and anemic. No murder, rape, or serious
physical assaults with at least one party without arbitration. No mention of
how emergency calls would be handled. No extrapolation to fire, emergency,
infrastructure, etc. No examples of who might be held responsbile in the
case of false imprisonment. No explanation of how the intransigent are to
receive protection (I can guess).
Mr. Friedman is also very fond of pronouncements, statements that are
critical to the solution (ie begging the question) yet to be taken without
proof or question.
For example he notes that a large fraction of current disputes are handled
by arbitration rather than the courts. The only cause he cites is cost. In
fact a host of other issues such as 'resricted discovery', control over the
arbitration process over and above that in a court, a 3rd party with binding
authority whereas a arbitrated agreement can almost always be re-arbitrated.
He notes the arbiter has no police force, well, except for Guido and his
buddies running around recovering televisions.
He further states that a firms desire stems from reputation maintenance, and
not economic issues.
He makes the false distinction that security systems (eg Brinks guards,
locks, burglar alarms) are not coercion, which in fact they clearly are.
They are a detriment to the psychology of the thief. He further claims they
are protection from coercion as well, when in fact they are a responce to
coercion.
He discusses foot patrols for example, without explaining how each of these
small agencies with only a fraction of the populous as paying customers will
be able to cover the entire city. With only a handfull of agencies the vast
majority of citizens will be on foot patrol themselves. Consider a city of
100,000 people related to the number of police, then multiply that by say 5
to represent the arbitration agency forces.
His commentary that the courts are deteriorating is both vague and of
sufficient import to deserve more than 11 words total attention.
He makes a comparison between the current multi-tiered legal system (eg
local, state, federal) and the multiplicity of 'laws' that would exist, one
set for each arbitrage firm as proof the system is fundamentaly sound. Yet
he makes no recognition that all law in this country is under one
Constitution.
This was from only the first three pages of a 5 1/2 page chapter. The rest
of the chapter, and the book, and much of Mr. Friedman's other works are of
comparible quality. His tools are the traditional static market sort of
view with the supposedly novel idea of 'free' meaning 'unregulated'.
____________________________________________________________________
The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
Chris Lawson
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
