Aggression carries a high risk, of either concurrent retaliation or retaliation after the fact (by aggravated parties)
Clearly the motivation to perform violence is heightened due to the State since resources are wasted and people are made desperate by lack of supply in goods and services. So the risk of suffering violence (at least the motivation to do so) is greater in a State system... what about the strength of reasons not to do so? The State often prohibits the ownership of weapons such as hand guns so an individual is less protected because of the State. Concurrent retaliation is not an increased deterrent under the State system.
So is retaliatory action an increased deterrent to violence after the fact in the presence of the State? Many point to what are seen as lenient sentences for violent crime in modern societies... Would a "vigilante" force* do any better?
Assuming they would do better, how do we know that they too would not become a menace? The answer is that they also face the same threat of retaliation from elsewhere and their motivation to perpetrate violence is less than it would be in a State system.
In a free market everything is more efficient and this applies to law and order just as well. If the natural end-point of evolutionary progression is less violence then a lack of a State (and hence greater efficiency) can only accelerate the development toward peace. Alternatively, someone who fears that the natural order of things is for more and more violence will then be in favour of the State to delay this eventual outcome.
The conclusion we draw is that anarchy (the lack of a State) reduces violence, not least because the practice (aggression) is no longer sanctioned and approved of by those in charge. The State is nothing more than the means by which the dominant group exert violence. It is the orthodox Mafia...
The criminal fears anarchy because "justice" would be much more swift and more damning due to the enhanced efficiency of the free market. People would require a very high standard of behaviour among those they associate with and there would be greater incentive to behave well, to enable access to the most discerning people. If a vigilante group delivers justice which is too harsh perhaps resulting in death for the victim (deemed by them to have been a criminal) then the disincentive for that group will be the retaliation of other vigilante groups loyal to the "criminal". It is less likely that such a situation will escalate in a free market because those in a position to make decisions are directly affected by the outcome, not removed from it.
A vigilante group may also issue threats to someone considered to be a criminal... the threat would be that if certain actions are repeated a sanction will follow. This can be communicated to all other vigilante groups to reassure them against (to obviate) a heated response to a surprise lynching.
The difference would be that all associations are voluntary - a free market of States - someone who feels insufficiently protected can join what they consider to be a more "vigilant" group. Naturally they would be expected to make a more significant contribution to such a group. And you would negotiate with the local group the extent of your contribution... there would be those who are willing to do protective vigilante work for free... The State prevent people from investigating crime and has a monopoly on protection... How much more efficient would crime-reduction (and prevention) be if everyone worked together, without duress or coercion...
Most people want to reduce crime but are prevented from doing so because the State has a monopoly on crime-prevention.
There are always people who are willing to protect an area, for one thing they may have children and family in the jurisdiction. "Protection" is something that cannot be separated from our behaviour, it is the instinctive reaction to violence the only question is to whom are they (those who provide security) allied? Anarchy asks for a reduction of loyalties so that the criminal can be assimilated before things get too bad... You would have to trust that violence would be reduced in a society where we all act as individuals out of self-interest.
Mostly crime is motivated by a sense of injustice, (the desire for) revenge and societal conflict (if you are concerned for your belongings hide them in a safe or get insurance). If you are fearful of a random attack then, because the State has disarmed you, you are weakened.
If you are killed would there be an investigation and repercussions for the criminal? Would a vigilante group take any interest? Yes, because to have a murder in the neighbourhood represents a risk to those living... You would want to make sure you are safe by living in a safe neighbourhood. You would leave an area that felt unsafe...
Our most powerful need is for territory... stealing possessions is of little long-term value and can easily be prevented by free market methods, insurance or safeguarding those assets. Assuming a criminal is not inclined to senseless violence, your greatest asset and target for them is territory. But, in anarchy, territorial rights are upheld by those (locally) that recognise them. To usurp someone from their territory (and to benefit from it) necessarily requires that a new person is taking advantage of the stolen territory.
The neighbours can see very easily that something has changed and may chose to take action damaging to the criminal.
Your assets are recognised and upheld by your neighbours so unless they recognise (and approve) your legitimacy to own them (which they wouldn't if you have taken them forcibly) then they cannot be stolen. You would only be allowed to join a neighbourhood if it can be shown that your behaviour is of high standing... But the good thing would be that security is provided locally and not administered by a distant central authority.
*The vigilante force would comprise a loose association of individuals whose security is heightened by their mutual association. A "free-loader" who seeks security without putting themselves on the line (at risk) would be stigmatised and would need to satisfy those who would risk their own safety that their commitment is reciprocated. Without that element of trust neither would the "free-loader" feel protected because he/she would sense that others doubted their commitment.
31st January 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment