The real problem here is government and not "private" (corporatist) prisons who would only exist as they are because gov't enabling.
Were we to abolish gov't and it's geographic monopolies on law and policing, then truly private prisons would both be way less common and nothing at all like what's talked about in the article.
Some of the statistics on crime are outdated but Benson's The Enterprise of Law is a great book to look at understanding the problem here.
Conditions were so terrible before the move for privatization in federal prisons (sometime in the 70's). With a move back toward that system (which would never happen because more politicians' and bureaucrats' pockets are being lined) you might not have quotas and the push for continued prohibition from this one little angle, but gov't is not a business[0], so the comparison to private hospitals or electric companies is faulty.
>Even Ayn Rand said that government should only be in the military and judicial business, how did we end up to the right of her?
You didn't overall. The idea of left and right politics is a false dichotomy and false mechanistic analogy, but I get what you are saying.
I take issue with even calling these prison co's "private". Corporatist is more accurate. To be truly private there would also not be monopolies on lawmaking... police and judges should all be privatized. Government should be abolished and politician should no longer be a job option.
Those companies who lobbied along with politicians for unjust laws, like punishment for putting any substance in my body so long as I harm none, all ought to be branded criminal and punished themselves. This is the position[0] of consistent, anarchist libertarianism, and those such as myself who hold these positions are not fans of Ayn Rand BTW[1].
>The US government is abolished, but the legal system is preserved? Not how it works.
I said this was a thought experiment to sort of isolate this one issue. It's how we (praxeologists of law) might give suggestions to the polycentric legal system rising from a previously state-ruled region.
You might not have this misunderstanding but many do. Anarchy simply means a lack of rulers. It doesn't necessarily entail chaos and it certainly doesn't mean a lack of law.
Anarchist libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism is distinguished from early leftist-"anarchism" by two main characteristics.
The former is radically and uncompromisingly for free markets and anti-state, with a focus on sound legal theory (a combination of a set of static legal grundnorms, viz. the praxeological aspect or a set of laws reasonably suited to all humans, with room for free variation among groups/cultures understanding that personal ideology will shape jurisprudence).
The latter—leftist-"anarchists" as you'll probably see protesting the next Gx Summit or depicted on the TV—make varieties of socialist or communistic ideological proposals which results in a total lack of consistent legal theory. As an ideology, "an-cap" is relatively new and our body of attendant legal writings already dwarves theirs. Where leftist-"anarchism" has been tried, it's failed to maintain civil order and the "leaders" have been nigh-indistinguishable from other despots.
>There would be a vacuum and a brutal rush to reappropriate resources according to rules other than property rights, which ceased to exist along with the government.
You'll probably get that anyhow if you are so unlucky to live in a country that implodes and it is more likely that most people will just go on following the status quo than you and others being so swayed by my words and we see an orderly unwinding of your gov't.
Throughout civilized history, from tribalism to today, we've seen paradigm changes. What's next when democracy fails? Ideology and law can both be seen broadly as "technologies". A few of us are working on a backup plan. Most people who are even interested involve themselves in electoral politics and/or try to use the web for "smart gov't".
>What's to stop me from building a militia and taking over a town? Taking your house and wife? I've got overwhelming force and I say they're mine.
The simple answer is that feuding is expensive, even more so of a drain without a mass of people to extract wealth from to fund wars.
Really though, if you were concerned with these objections you'd realize you already live in such conditions and become a libertarian anarchist! You live in a state (geographic monopoly on law, arbitration and the use of violence).
Democracy is an insidious advancement in ideological technology because it gave the populace the idea that "anyone can be king". The US was a noble experiment but I consider it a failure. You have a massive drain on standards of living from bureaucracy and regulations, meanwhile the political elite is not much different than in previous paradigms.
Why take houses by brute force when you have everyone in them convinced that X/Y/Z must be provided by gov't, and that gov't needs it's "revenues"?
Polycentric legal orders similar to what we propose have maintained civil order longer than the US has existed so far[0]. It was just after WW2 that the dollar upended the pound sterling as the world's reserve currency and there was a sudden huge rise in prices and chaos in Britain.
It will be an interesting chapter in history for how long the US maintains its global hegemony. Why not, with half of world military spending or whatever doesn't the US just start picking off little countries here and there like you say? Well they sort of actually do by proxy wars and "economic warfare".
At a basic level, governments are in a state of anarchy amongst themselves though. Why might it not work at other levels? I'm convinced that we can have what's promised by states but under-delivered by abolishing them. A lot of those suffering the sort of Stockholm syndrome concomitant with statism see what I am saying as crazy but I'm unconcerned.
This is one tactic on bringing about libertarian anarchy and many who in debate will say they oppose it actually are helping bring it about[1]. If you want a more in depth answer to your actual questions see here perhaps[2]. A DRO is a startup too ambitiously frightening for today's YC, but it actually funds many who feed into said tactic. Legal praxeology is just a hobby for myself and I doubt I'll live to see my dream of a free society, so I am working on a large global health problem which again is part of the tactic.
>Are you seriously suggesting that we could duplicate or triplicate all the roads in the country to allow competition between private road companies?
If you want to seriously consider alternatives to the status quo or at least be able to capably debate those like myself who do propose total privatization of roads, I'd point you to Walter Block's The Privatization of Roads and Highways.
I don't think that it would make sense to just multiply the roads we already have. For privatization of roads to exist, the gov't would have to give up its monopoly on their provision first, but the problem is much deeper than just this one unlikelihood.
You mention that if TWC/Comcast/etc. are given state-granted monopolies, why not, of course, ought they not be regulated? If I have a broken knee, why not get a doctor to fix it?
If I have a broken knee and it became this way because of the widespread acceptance of a legal order where nobody is punished for brandishing tire irons and kneecapping, the problem, then, really lies with this legal order. As an anarchist libertarian, I hope that one day governments worldwide will be abolished and until such time will work toward solutions for the problems to come from the inevitable insurrection of the "great" Western democracies.
My position is so unpopular, and so many people now are unable to consider that maybe democracy isn't such a great thing or that gov't shouldn't have its paws on healthcare, education, etc. I certainly don't suggest a step backwards toward feudalism or some sort of dictatorship, but you ought to keep in mind that besides the US, democracy before WW1 was only in 2 European countries.
I really do share the sentiments of those indoctrinated by statism, to want to see peace and prosperity, children be educated, the elderly having healthcare and so on, I just disagree with the technical (legal and economic) approach.
If one can overcome the idea that government MUST do X/Y/Z in order for civil order to be maintained or a good/service to be provided (and these ideas are often easily disproven by historical examples), then it can at least be a fun thought experiment.
So, to answer your question on multiplying roads we'll imagine that somehow the US gov't has been abolished. All the roads now would have a legal status of being unowned. Private companies could branch off roads but not just swoop in and toss up roadblocks or tollbooths. The reason here, and similar logic applies to public parks and other municipal monopolies, is that citizens have been granted easement rights to travel the roads.
Assuming the citizen is not a criminal member of the political elite, there's no reason to be able to take away these easement rights to travel. Companies could begin a very slow process of homesteading or coming to own the previously public roads by making improvements, patrolling for drunk drivers, etc.
For a road company to succeed, given that they can't just extract tolls from easement rightsholders, they'd have to add some value like as mentioned with fixing potholes, you'd probably see some expansions like the original ideas for I-70 in Baltimore, then there would probably be some bundling in with auto insurers and DRO's ("dispute resolution organizations", which could be for- or non-profit police and judges basically).
I said private law, not purely anarchic examples. I could give more anarchic ones if you liked but it's revisionist history so you'd have to do a good bit of reading to really discuss it.
Iceland is an example of polycentric law fairly close to what anarcho-capitalists advocate. You didn't really address that or the other points.
The first big difference between the Lex Mercatoria and present-day law is the source being jurisprudence and not bureaucratic legislation. The second would be cases being torts with an identifiable victim versus today's with victimless "crimes against society".
For why legislation is awful and for a hint at solutions under an eminently human system of law in a free society see these:
While states dominate history, private law has proven successful. You could see the Law Merchant throughout Europe as one example or medieval Iceland, where civil order was maintained for longer than the US has existed so far, as another.
You get or give funny looks when some one says they are a libertarian?
Your post doesn't make sense to me at all. What is this about levels of being an anarchist? I'm an anarcho-capitalist, basically, which is quite different than the typical leftist "anarchists".
>Seriously libertarians have no idea of the history of the political movement they are involved in.
Kind of a pointless remark don't you think? I'm pretty well-versed in the history of libertarian anarchism and lest-"anarchism".
>The Age of the Sturlungs is what Commonwealth devolved into in a relatively short period.
The Commonwealth lasted ~290 years. That's all that's relevant is that a polycentric legal order, one paradigmatically different than the statist one that dominates history has worked and could work again.
Your bloody Sturlunga is evidence of the aggressive nature of the statism you propose as "necessary".
>Ok, apparently you haven't yet read much about economics
Sure homie. Update me when you have read Human Action. To me markets are capitalism, but people equivocate on "capitalism" as also the current statist crony corporatism. Wittgenstein teaches us to be clear about what we mean. If you're not familiar with him it's a simple and important lesson.
Failed state? More like failed UN insurgency and failed propping up government the people don't want going on 20+ years. Anarchy reigns outside of the warzone. Past Galkayo there is quite a lot of peace relative to Mogadishu. Even before Barre's regime failed it is estimated that 80-90% of any state court orders were ignored in preference of Xeer customary law. You don't know the situation here if you can distill it to "failed state" and "warlords".
Who cares you read sagas or whatever about a Lebanese kidnapping?
Haha. The Age of the Sturlungs, the "bloody" era is after the early Commonwealth I am talking about. Way to not even read my links or have a remote clue about the topic. Look 2 up on the right list on your link for what I am talking about.
You're complaining about what happened after people switched over to the statist mindset you simultaneously are trapped in.
>Both subsistence farming (e.g. means of production that are by definition not exhibiting division of labor) and an extremly low population density mean that both communication and coordination between people are orders of magnitude smaller than in complex and dense societies. That's pretty much consensus both in macro economics and in sociology.
Seems like just another bullshit excuse for an increase in bureaucracy like OP is joining into.
>Has it occured to you that "my type" simply isn't persuaded by your argument?
I don't care. The fact remains that we are not allowed any land to experiment with. Say you aren't opposed to experimentation all you want but let me know when we can experiment and I will care. Your democracy experiment will crumble before this ever happens anyhow so whatever. Democracy was not common outside the US pre-WW1.
Qualify "bloody". You can say it all you want, but once the polycentric system fell to the cultural perks and a new monopoly given to the church and chaos ensued, the people begged the king of Denmark for a relative stability.
We're talking about many centuries before your irrelevant census point. A 2 or 20 person society is relevant on a theoretical level.
Go look on wikipedia for the earliest abolition of slavery:
After the early rush of settlers, the need for external slaves became unnecessary because the population eclipsed exploitable resources.
Whatever bullshit objection like small population or they are "backwards" subsistence farmers is irrelevant to the fact that civil order was maintained by polycentric law for 3 centuries. Could it work today? Your type won't even allow the experiment so people are forced into schemes like seasteading or "free cities" in Central America.
Your summary of medieval Iceland displays your ignorance. Go read the article I linked and see Byock from UCLA if you will only crack open mainstream history. Byock supports the history just fails to recognize the polycentric and anarchist interpretation.
The point is that society functioned well and civil order, viz. not the chaos that "anarchy" is assumed, was maintained for longer than the US has existed. In the grand scale of history medieval Iceland succeeded almost 3x as long as the democracy you surely worship has been unquestioned as superior (just ~100 years now).
>Can you actually make a real case in teh real world that "government" in some for is not nesercery?
Let's gloss over that Lex Mercatoria why don't we. Yeah, I missed mentioning my #2 area of knowledge, Xeer customary law in Somalia. The quality of life there has improved vastly despite the UN insurgency (see proof in my past comments from CIA/World Bank stats).
Wait, I can just hear it now, "warlords". I'll spare myself the time responding to ignorant people like you and just drop one more link. Maybe one day I will be bestowed the honor to silence those who disagree and remain happy in my ignorance without reading.
>Only _some_ aspects and activities of government are criminal.
States do some "good" things like feeding hungry schoolchildren, but never without first committing some "bad". Typically this is extortion (taxation/"revenue"),but originally states are founded on other forms of aggression like military conquest.
Those who perform "good" tasks like being a teacher or web developer can be forgiven totally.
>We still need someone to build roads
This is the #1 laugher for us anarchist libertarians. Here's a lengthy book if you would like to see the case against road socialism.
Poke around that site and I'm sure you can find many more arguments for each of the things you mistakenly think a free society can't provide.
Please realize that the blind alley is in part thinking that government is a business. It isn't and will never be. It's similar to your local mafioso, just a widely accepted one.
>Even though some of the people operating the government are criminals, the function of government is necessary
History disproves that a government (geographic monopoly on arbitration and security) is necessary for maintaining civil order. Of course, you aren't taught this history in state education.
I'm most familiar with the polycentric legal order of medieval Iceland, which lasted longer than the US has so far, so I will point there first.
I think it's important that more people start to recognize government for the evil that it is and build businesses that help keep money out of gov't coffers rather than keep heading down the blind alley you suggest.
If you are an honest person, you'd now would admit you are wrong that gov't is necessary. You just don't know the history yet. Who's really the black and white extremist here? It's okay, I'm familiar that the majority of statists like yourself are oblivious to their Stockholm syndrome and hardened indoctrination. (The rest may be able to see gov't for what it is but lack the creativity to start to work toward alternate solutions.)
You seem pretty set that this gov't thing is necessary. There's at least a few thousand abolitionists like myself ready to pioneer the land a state is willing to cede. Let's go grey baby. Are you even open to the idea you could be wrong?
"an open, transparent, and efficient government" is a blind alley. While the tasks you will be doing are not criminal, you are working for criminals. You might reject my radical statements out of hand but if you are open to why I say this and want to know more please let me know.
Were we to abolish gov't and it's geographic monopolies on law and policing, then truly private prisons would both be way less common and nothing at all like what's talked about in the article.
Some of the statistics on crime are outdated but Benson's The Enterprise of Law is a great book to look at understanding the problem here.
Conditions were so terrible before the move for privatization in federal prisons (sometime in the 70's). With a move back toward that system (which would never happen because more politicians' and bureaucrats' pockets are being lined) you might not have quotas and the push for continued prohibition from this one little angle, but gov't is not a business[0], so the comparison to private hospitals or electric companies is faulty.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqoBZLSm1WA