Chaos Theory
This month, we’re going to take a look at alternate systems of government…because election day is in two days, so let’s see how else we could be ruled, starting with this weeks book, Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy.
This is a VERY short book, like less than 100 pages. Not gonna lie, I kind of picked all short books this month on purpose, since I have REAGAN at the end of the month, and I KNOW that one’s gonna require some extra brain power. THIS book, is basically two essays, discussing the benefits of anarcho-capitalism. Which appeals to me, since I am basically an anarcho-capitalist. No joke, I took one of those quizzes that helps you determine your political alliances, and literally came back anarcho-capitalist.
So this book was basically an addendum to Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. But Murphy expands on a couple of niche ideas from Rothbard’s work, and in an interesting way, addressing specifically Private Law in essay 1 and Private Defense in essay 2.
So for Private Law, Murphy points out “A Free society is one in which property rights are (generally) respected. The existence of a State – an institution that uses force to place itself above property rights—thus precludes freedom as we shall use the term.”
This falls in with the screeching Libertarian battle cry… “Taxation is theft.” Which is true. Government has so little respect for private property, that they are stealing your money from your paycheck, every payday. So how do we get around the problem of government stealing everything not nailed down and treating the lot of us like lifelong indentured servants?
Contract Law.
I mean EVERYTHING is handled via contract law. And then trusted mediators determine if a contract has been breeched. And if yes, then insurance adjusters pay out.
Now…at first I was skeptical based on how generally sleezy insurance companies are, and how insurance companies are notorious for finding any reason NOT to pay out. But then again, insurance companies as they now stand are operated virtually without competition and entirely with the governments blessings. Hell, government props them up and encourages them to be badly run, because Insurance companies spend massive money on their preferred political critters. So do…well…lobbyists. Guess what industry would entirely vanish if we had no government? Lobbying. Without the need for absurd laws controlling every facet of our lives, there would be no need for someone to lobby government to get those laws passed.
So basic contract law, open market insurance agencies, which would keep prices low because insurance agencies would have to compete for your money. Specialized firms would provide standardized forms. And Murphy goes into a great deal of detail on how this could work. Up to an including murder.
No joke. He has a section on how murder would happen. See, if you’ve EVER seen Legally Blonde….or any episode of any Law and Order….then you know about the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum. Prohibitum just means it’s illegal because the government says it’s illegal. Like speeding. In se means it’s wrong because you are infringing directly on someone elses rights. Like murder, theft, rape…. So contracts include clauses such as “If I am found guilty of murder I agree to pay $y million to the estate of the deceased.”
And as he points out, no one is going to sign such a contract unless there’s a strong presumption of innocence. However, procedures have to cover the ability to catch and convict the actual guilty party.
If you engage in criminal activity, even if it’s not murder. Let’s say you decide to be a thief. And you get caught, and found guilty. You’re basically broke, or you’ve hidden the proceeds from your theft, but you have kept up your insurance premiums. Your insurance company will pay out the agreed on amount. Then drop you as a client. Eventually, you become uninsurable. And unemployable. Because no one will want to hire someone who can’t get basic insurance not for lack of money, but because the insurance companies have determined you are a bad risk.
I saw a very similar argument made on I believe it was fee.org, on how we could easily get rid of bad cops…by making them carry personal insurance that pays out if they are found guilty of abuse of power. If the cop becomes uninsurable, then he or she loses their job. Nifty, right?
What about the incorrigibles? During my review of Rothbard’s book back in May when I read Rothbard’s book is that there will ALWAYS be those who refuse to play nice with others. Well, Murphy has an answer for them too. Well, fuck me if I don’t ADORE market anarchists. He found a way to make serial killers profitable. And I don’t mean in a “let’s sell the art work from prison and tell my story in a tell all biography” kind of pay. I mean, how and why insurance agencies…yep, INSURANCE AGENCIES…would be willing to keep insurance contracts with serial killers. If the killer is found guilty of said crimes, then the insurance agency would deal with the killer if the killer agreed to live in a secure building under close scrutiny.
Now, I did find this a bit of a stretch, based on the way Murphy worded it. Because why would the serial killer AGREE to such a restriction. I would counter that part of the risk the insurance company takes is that in addition to having to pay out to the estate of the deceased, they would become liable for ensuring said killer remained in a secure facility, or face additional payout.
So for those who would argue that under this system, the insurance agencies become the state, Murphy says no. Because insurance agencies would not have the power to tax or monopolize any service. And if they decline to pay legitimate claims, then they would quickly go out of business, as their clients would take their business elsewhere.
The other part that had me not quite convinced was the argument on children. Because kids are innocent and should absolutely be protected. And he makes some good points about marriage contracts including protection of kids from abuse in the marriage. And he allows for a possibility of a “baby market” in which children unwanted by parents or family could be sold. This would no doubt be more effective than our current foster care and adoption system. But what about the highest bidder possibly being a pedophile? I don’t see that addressed. And this is concerning, as groomers are openly feted on social media, this one area, brushes up against the tiny part of me that believes maybe government isn’t all bad, and maybe we do need minarchy.
Minarchy is basically a belief in extremely limited government. Because children are not able to enter into contracts for their own safety. And if you sign a sales contract for your kid to someone else, even if that contract includes a retraction clause if you find out about abuse….how exactly are you gonna know? So protecting kids hit my brick wall of faith in anarcho-capitalism.
On to the second essay, which is specifically about Defense. Because most people see standing armies as the only possible defense, and armies are pretty solely the province of governments.
Well, insurance companies would have good reason to keep invading armies from invading. Because wars are expensive. If you remember from Henry Hazlitt’s book Economics in One Lesson, the broken glass fallacy is a FALLACY. No one actually benefits from war, except the military industrial complex, something so well known Eisenhower warned against it in his final speech. And he goes into detail on how this would work and how insurance against war would be fairly inexpensive for us mere commoners, because the larger corporations have even more reason to not want a military invasion. EXPENSIVE. But basically, this section could be summed up with a solid libertarian truism—“When goods cross borders, armies don’t.”
