| Mr Khan said: Well, you've got me over a barrel in the first point, kudos. It's not a state since it's formed on an ad-hoc basis. Second point, though, i would still contend goes my way. We're talking about a society composed almost entirely of free farmers, maybe some fishers and shaman. Could, for instance, entities like large corporations function fairly in such a system of pure voluntary associations? Equally, the trouble of paying for justice is that, contrary to the claims of your Icelandic example, is that it would result in virtual slavery for the poor (work to pay off judgments against you), especially when the question of voluntary association weighs the playing field in favor of the rich. It would quickly become open to mass violations of individual liberties through inequality of opportunity. Especially as the wealthy would have much more buying power for these voluntary, private courts, diminishing accountability in that regard (something which would open the door to large-scale corruption in these groups as well). This things functioned in a low volume society of small producers. It is very difficult to "test" how the rigors of capitalism would have upended it, but history showed that the small producers were the main victims of capitalism's rise. |
It wouldn't result in slavery for the poor as the value of the enforcement of their right is the same as it is for the rich. Their reward is not payment from the rich, but payment from the enforcement of the right (retributive.) They make a decision to buy this right off anybody, the poor/rich, etc. Then it becomes their responsibility to bring the aggressor to justice, as it is in their self-interest (profit-wise) to do so. If the rich harm the poor, that is more incentive for the agency to take that case because it means a larger reward in the instance that they win. Yes, the rich might bribe them or pay them, but that happens with a state enforcing public law as well. We can say for certain that large corporations don't function fairly with the state, so it's a reality regardless of the state's existence, and honestly if a company wants to maximize its profits in the business it will target all consumers: rich and poor.
I'd argue that history shows small producers were the main victims of the state's involvement in economic activity. Almost all long-lasting monopolies and unfairness which were in favor of large business have been at least partly due to the hand of the state. For every monopoly you name there is a bill, regulation, or judgement that enabled it. Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, 19th century individualist anarchists and leftists, both of whom subscribed to socialist/marxist analysis, believed the poor were in the predicament to sell their labor only because the state made it impossible for them to otherwise through various credit and fiscal regulations. Lysander Spooner also believed in natural rights. So that is an interesting bridge between marxism and the pre-existing liberalism.
