“A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses. ” – Ayn Rand.
Competing governments already exist, it is called different countries. The notion that governments should be competing in the same geographic area, is even a bigger headache. Of course these governments would be funded voluntarily, which is a big difference, however it does not solve the essential problem. I was going to write a drawn out logical chain to show that competition between two entities of retaliatory force in the same geographic area is essentially the initiation of force, but I am lazy and thus opting out to simply skipping to the end.
Whatever you want to call it, the government, security agency, retaliatory force company, its essential job is to protect you and your property, to protect your rights. For ease of communication we will call it a rights protecting agency. So here is the problem. Person A subscribes to rights protecting agency X. Agency X is a small to medium firm. Person A also has some monetary dealings with company Y, a very large company, imagine Apple, Amazon, or Walmart. Company Y also happens to have their own rights protecting division, which is also very large, and besides from protecting the company at whole, it also has many other subscribers. There is some issue with the deal, person A believes his money was taken, while company Y believes they have honored the deal and does not want to issue any refunds. Person A calls his rights protecting agency X and files a complaint, he wants to sue company Y. Agency X calls company Y, company Y basically tells them to kick rocks. How does person A get a fair trial?
I have debated on the internet for long time, so here are some possible Anarchist solutions to the issue that I have heard.
- They get a third party arbitrator: This is all fine and dandy, but the whole point is company Y is not willing to go to any arbitration process.
- Company Y would be willing to go to arbitration because a violent confrontation with Agency X is not in their interest: Company Y has a very large force, in any confrontation they would easily win. Besides you can say the same thing about Agency X, they don’t want a violent confrontation either, especially with a superior force. Company Y knows this and simply calls their bluff for force.
- Agency X has the moral right to attack because it is Company Y that is not willing to go to arbitration: First of all how is Agency X committing suicide a solution to person’s A funds being taken? And second of all, remember there has not been any trial, so the moral standing of these two parties is not known. Person A could be a scammer, trying to get Agency X to extort funds for him from company Y.
- Both companies have incentive to go to arbitration because not doing so would give them a bad reputation or rating: This is just naive. Companies do plenty of shady stuff and remain very successful.
I don’t know all the anarchist rebuttals, but that is a starting point for a larger discussion if anyone is interested.
