A number of years ago there was an interesting back and forth among libertarian scholars on the feasibility of free market anarchism — a society where law (security and arbitration) is provided entirely by private agencies.
I recently stumbled onto a critique of Anarcho-capitalism by the Objectivist, Harry Binswanger. Being a libertarian anarchist myself, I was curious of his arguments. Ultimately, I was disappointed.
Not every private contract is enforceable. Example: cartels fail because each party benefits if they violate the agreement to refrain from lowering their prices
I truly appreciate the nuance with which Dave approaches the issue—something which tends to be missing by "both sides" on this subject. Despite that, I still had my disagreements
In particular, his work on intellectual property leaves much to be desired. His essay, The Law of Intellectual Property, offers a somewhat confused theory of IP, contains contradictions, and rests on questionable fundamentals.
When I was standing on the side of the road a dozen different drivers came up to offer me their service. I’d like to start seeing that in medicine. Just imagine if you had a health problem, and a dozen different doctors came to you to offer you their services.
As long as people interact with others, rules which govern their behavior will be necessary. What often goes unnoticed, however, are the myriad non-state methods and institutions which create and alter the rules of our society.
What sets the “immigration policy” in a free market, is the private decisions of many different people who choose who to (and who not to) hire, purchase from, lease to, sell to, etc.
Immigration is controversial among libertarians for valid reasons. Many libertarians reduce their political opinions down to property rights and non-aggression. For immigration, however, it is difficult to see how appealing to property rights can address the question since it entails the movement of people over public property. Anti-State There is another common sentiment that is
