Private defense agency

Last updated

A private defense agency (PDA) is an enterprise which would provide personal protection and military defense services to individuals who would voluntarily contract for its services. PDAs are advocated in anarcho-capitalism and market-based forms of social anarchism, such as mutualism.[ citation needed ]

Military Organization primarily tasked with preparing for and conducting war

A military is a heavily-armed, highly-organised force primarily intended for warfare, also known collectively as armed forces. It is typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, with its members identifiable by their distinct military uniform. It may consist of one or more military branches such as an Army, Navy, Air Force and in certain countries, Marines and Coast Guard. The main task of the military is usually defined as defence of the state and its interests against external armed threats. Beyond warfare, the military may be employed in additional sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions within the state, including internal security threats, population control, the promotion of a political agenda, emergency services and reconstruction, protecting corporate economic interests, social ceremonies and national honor guards.

Anarcho-capitalism political philosophy and school of thought

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that in the absence of statute, society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the spontaneous and organic discipline of the free market.

Social anarchism is a non-state form of socialism and is considered to be the branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as being interrelated with mutual aid. Social anarchist thought emphasizes community and social equality as complementary to autonomy and personal freedom through norms such as freedom of speech maintained in a decentralized federalism, balanced with freedom of interaction in thought as well as incorporating the concept of subsidiarity, namely "that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry" and that "[f]or every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, [should] never destroy and absorb them", or simply the slogan "Do not take tools out of people's hands".

Contents

A PDA is distinguished from a private contractor of the state which is subsidized financially through taxation or legally through monopoly and immunity, and relies on conscription and other involuntary support. Instead, such agencies would be voluntarily financed primarily by competing insurance and security companies, which are penalized for losses and damages, and have a financial incentive to minimize waste and maximize quality of service.

A private military company (PMC) is a private company providing armed combat or security services for financial gain. PMCs refer to their staff as "security contractors" or "private military contractors". Private military companies refer to their business generally as the "private military industry" or "The Circuit".

A subsidy or government incentive is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy. Although commonly extended from government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct and indirect.

Monopoly Market structure with a single firm dominating the market

A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. This contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few sellers dominating a market. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service, a lack of viable substitute goods, and the possibility of a high monopoly price well above the seller's marginal cost that leads to a high monopoly profit. The verb monopolise or monopolize refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices. Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry.

Theory

As proponents of free-market anarchism, Benjamin Tucker [1] [2] and Gustave de Molinari first explicitly proposed for-profit private defense agencies. The concept later was advanced and expanded upon by anarcho-capitalists who consider the state to be illegitimate, and therefore believe defense is something that should be provided or determined privately by individuals and firms competing in a free market. The Mises Institute published a book of essays entitled The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production . [3] Murray N. Rothbard in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto and David D. Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom expand substantially on the idea. Both hold that a PDA would be part of a privatized system of law, police, courts, insurance companies and arbitration agencies who are responsible for preventing and dealing with aggression. In this environment, victimless crimes and "crimes against the state" would be rendered moot, and the legal realm would be limited to contractual disputes and tort damages, as from assault, burglary, pollution, and all other forms of aggression. [4] [5] This concept is similar to Polycentric law. Within economics, discussion of the concept largely has been confined to the Austrian School, as in Hans Hoppe's article "The Private Production of Defense" published by the Mises Institute. [6]

Free-market anarchism, or market anarchism, includes several branches of anarchism that advocate an economic system based on voluntary, free-market interactions without the involvement of the state. A branch of market anarchism is left-wing market anarchism, including modern mutualists such as Kevin Carson and Gary Chartier, who consider themselves anti-capitalists and identify as part of the socialist movement.

Benjamin Tucker American journalist and anarchist

Benjamin Ricketson Tucker was an American 19th-century proponent of individualist anarchism which he called "unterrified Jeffersonianism" and editor and publisher of the American individualist anarchist periodical Liberty.

Gustave de Molinari Belgian political economist and classical liberal theorist

Gustave de Molinari was a Belgian political economist and classical liberal theorist associated with French laissez-faire economists such as Frédéric Bastiat and Hippolyte Castille.

These authors emphasize that PDAs have different motives from existing statist defense agencies. Their survival depends on quality of service leading to a wide customer base, rather than the ability to extract funds via the force of law, as is true of states. Customers and markets would thus dictate that PDAs minimize offensive tendencies and militarization in favor of a pure defense. Anarcho-capitalists believe such privatization and decentralization of defense would eliminate the credibility of, and popular support for, the state.

In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

Sovereign state Political organization with a centralized independent government

In international law, a sovereign state, sovereign country, or simply state, is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.

Militarism belief of government that it should maintain a strong military and be prepared to use it

Militarism is the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values. It may also imply the glorification of the military and of the ideals of a professional military class and the "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state".

As a private firm offering individually determined defense, the PDA provides a model for how an entirely private defense would work in a free market. John Frederic Kosanke argues that the need for large-scale defense is minimized in direct inverse proportion to the extent of domestic control by the state. Since the greater number of proprietors makes surrender more costly to an aggressor than a relatively authoritarian region, vulnerability to attack is less likely. Furthermore, since individuals minding their own business pose little threat to neighboring regions, official or ideological justification by those neighbors for attacking them is also proportionately diminished. [7]

Surrender (military) cessation of fighting by the losing party

Surrender, in military terms, is the relinquishment of control over territory, combatants, fortifications, ships or armament to another power. A surrender may be accomplished peacefully, without fighting, or it may be the result of defeat in battle. A sovereign state may surrender following defeat in a war, usually by signing a peace treaty or capitulation agreement. A battlefield surrender, either by individuals or when ordered by officers, normally results in those surrendering becoming prisoners of war.

Vulnerability refers to the inability to withstand the effects of a hostile environment. A window of vulnerability (WOV) is a time frame within which defensive measures are diminished, compromised or lacking.

Lack of monopoly power

Hoppe points out that there is a contradiction in the beliefs of most philosophers and economists in reference to national defense. They generally hold that any monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into his area of production, the price of his product X will be higher and its quality lower than otherwise. Yet they simultaneously hold that security must be undertaken by the government, which is a territorial monopoly of law and order (the ultimate decision maker and enforcer). Hoppe holds that the two propositions are clearly incompatible. [8] In his essay The Production of Security, Molinari concluded: [9]

Tyler Cowen, however, argues that allowing private defense agencies would not necessarily prevent a monopoly on defense services, by positing that a cooperating network of such firms could use aggressive force to enforce the cartel's market domination. Noting that advocates of PDAs typically argue that abuses would be prevented by the presence of rival agencies acting under the authority of rulings made by arbitrators empowered by inter-agency arbitration agreements, Cowen opines, "The adjudication network is stable only if it can use force to put down outlaw agencies that do not accept its higher-order arbitration decisions. Such a network could also use force to put down firms that do not adhere to the collusive agreement." [10]

Anarcho-capitalists argue that competing defense providers would concentrate on comparatively lower-cost defense and security technology rather than relatively costly offensive weaponry, in order to maintain lower premiums and service charges. A company's offensive capabilities would also be readily exposed by such an aggressor's competitors. State-subsidized militaries, in contrast, are granted a distinct offensive advantage, resulting in a proportionately greater tendency toward monopolization.

Aggression and abuses by private defense agencies

Randall G. Holcombe argues that "Firms might prey on their competitors' customers, as competing mafia groups do, to show those customers that their current protective firm is not doing the job and thus to induce them to switch protection firms. This action seems to be a profit-maximizing strategy; hence, protection firms that do not prey on noncustomers may not survive." Holcombe states that mafias offers protection for a fee, but it also uses its resources for predation; and thus profit-maximizing firms could be expected to employ them in the dual roles of protection and predation. [11] Peter Leeson and Edward Stringham rebut this argument by claiming that unless the firm were overwhelmingly more powerful than its prey, it could incur substantial costs and risks in attempting to extract wealth by force. They argue that the potential for even a small state to inflict losses on a larger state explains why violent confrontations between states are less common than between individuals in New York City's Central Park; in other words, it is not the size of the group in question that matters, since in either case being the aggressor is likely to bring about undesirable risks and diminution of resources. [12]

In The Market for Liberty , Linda and Morris Tannehill note that a private defense agency would be unlikely to engage in aggression, as it would not only become a target of retaliatory force, but would become the subject of severe business ostracism. Honest and productive individuals would dissociate themselves from it, fearing that it might use its aggressive force against them in the event of a dispute; or that they might become accidental casualties when retaliatory force is used by one of its other victims; or that their own reputation would suffer due to their ties to it. Moreover, the private defense agency's reputation would suffer and it would be regarded as a poor credit and insurance risk, the latter due to the high risk of claims resulting from its involvement in aggression. The employees and leaders of such an agency as well could face personal civil liability for their involvement, and the agency would not be shielded by sovereign immunity. High-quality employees would presumably be less willing to be involved with such an organization. [13]

They also argue that a defense company would be less likely to abuse its power and impose tyranny, noting that it "couldn't extract taxes from them, as a government does...A market relationship is a free relationship, and if a customer doesn't like a company's service or mistrusts its goals, he is free to take his business elsewhere, or to start his own competitive company, or to do without the service and just provide from himself...The objection that a tyrant might take over is actually a devastating argument against government." [14]

Rothbard makes a similar point, noting, "Of course, some of the private defense agencies will become criminal, just as some people become criminal now. But the point is that in a stateless society there would be no regular, legalized channel for crime and aggression, no government apparatus the control of which provides a secure monopoly for invasion of person and property...To create such an instrument de novo is very difficult, and, indeed, almost impossible; historically, it took State rulers centuries to create a functioning State apparatus." [15]

It has been argued, "If Defense Agency A instead of invading a business decides to invade a more worthwhile target such as a gold warehouse they are left with a much more complicated problem. The gold warehouse is owned by an entrepreneur who has his own defense agency and the gold in the warehouse also have owners that have hired their own respective defense agencies. In essence, Defense Agency A will have to deal with the wrath of the warehouse owner, the warehouse owner's defense agency and the defense agencies of all the owners of the gold in that warehouse." [16]

Robert P. Murphy opines that given the privatization of other services in an anarcho-capitalist society, "We must consider that in such an environment, the law-abiding majority would have all sorts of mechanisms at their disposal, beyond physical confrontation. Once private judges had ruled against a particular rogue agency, the private banks could freeze its assets (up to the amount of fines levied by the arbitrators). In addition, the private utility companies could shut down electricity and water to the agency’s headquarters, in accordance with standard provisions in their contracts." [17]

The argument that customers will be able to hire a competing firm to protect them against a rogue defense agency has been critiqued by Jonathan Bond's essay, The Price of Private Law, which argues, "If two defense firms are engaged in a truly ‘local’ dispute, and the remaining firms are not convinced that either their own interests will be affected or that systemic destabilization will result if the conflict continues, then the costs of intervening and ending the inter-agency war could presumably bar such third parties from stepping into the crossfire." Bond also argues that some firms may not be concerned with the risk of alienating other clients, because their clientele may consist of a small number of, or even only one, enormous multinational corporations. Bond further argues that some PDAs may reduce their risk of retaliation by carrying out anonymous sabotage or terrorist attacks. [18]

Villacampa notes that consumers with large amounts of wealth would likely pay more for private defense, stating "There is no reason for someone void of valuable assets to hire a defense agency that is meant to protect assets other than oneself; but, in an involuntary government payment is demanded for the services regardless of whether they are use or not." He argues an alliance of aggressor private defense agencies would likely be unprofitable: "Chances are high that a mobilization of a mass army of defense agencies will cost more to each individual than his gain from gold, land, and such divided equally amongst themselves. If the region being attacked has large stashes of valuable goods, they will most likely have very effective defense agencies (stronger defense agencies for more valuable assets are logical) and thus the fight against the invading defense agencies will inflict more cost upon the invaders." [16]

Financing of private defense agencies

Defense is often viewed as an archetypical public good  i.e., a product that can only be provided by government because of its non-excludability and non-rivalrous consumption. Specifically, the free rider problem, in which people refuse to pay for defense but instead rely on their neighbors to pay for defending the community, is said to make it inevitable that it be financed by taxes if an equitable allocation of costs is to be achieved. According to anarcho-capitalist theorists, there are many ways by which this problem can be overcome or rendered irrelevant. Rothbard's solution was to simply say "Who cares?" when it comes to the issue of free riders. He points out that free riders are commonplace in other aspects of our economy, asking hypothetically, "Are we to be critical because more than one person benefits from someone's actions?...In short, am I to be taxed for enjoying the view of my neighbor's well-kept garden?" He notes that we are all free riders on the past, as we would be living in a primitive society if it were not for the efforts of our ancestors; and we are free riders on the present, because we benefit from the continuing investment of our fellow men and from their specialized skills on the market. [19] Joseph R. Stromberg notes that the American Revolution occurred despite the fact that some individuals might have been free riders who benefited from it without funding it; he opines that successful defense of freedom often relies not on precise allocations of cost, but on "nationalism, religion, the desire for freedom, hatred of the enemy, social pressure to do the right thing, and so on," some of which might represent "enlightened self interest." [20]

Linda and Morris Tannehill believe that big businesses will tend to pay the bulk of the defense costs (since they stand to lose the most in the event of an attack); they would then pass on the costs to their customers, and so the costs of defense would be spread out among the whole population. [21] A landowner seeking to establish a community may sell or lease the land with provisions written into the deed or lease agreement, requiring the new owner or tenant to pay for defense on a permanent basis; this same technique has already been in some neighborhoods to ensure that residents pay for private streets shared in common by all of them. As is true for homeowners today, everyone would be responsible for buying or otherwise being covered by aggression insurance in order to protect themselves against catastrophic loss from foreign attack; in the event of an invasion, a claim would be filed with right of subrogation, and the insurer would hire a private defense company to collect from the aggressor. An argument against this method of funding is that other aggression insurers who didn't pay for defense would still benefit from the reduced risk of attack on their customers in the same area, in effect becoming free riders who could drive the "altruistic" insurer out of business. [22] However, the private defense agency's activity need not be limited to defensive and retaliatory measures funded by the insurer; It could also go after the aggressor in an effort to obtain restitution (including reasonable collection costs), perhaps through ransom or capture of enemy assets, as privateers did in the 18th and 19th centuries under letters of marque and reprisal. [23] Prisoners of war also used to have shadow prices (ransoms) which were a source of income for victorious forces; this represents another potential alternative to taxation. [24]

Sometimes arguments are made for voluntary funding of defense by way of attacking taxation. Anarcho-capitalists often argue, for instance, that the argument that taxation is needed to fund protection of liberty and property from aggression is a contradiction, because taxation itself requires aggression in order to be enforced. Another argument comes from the fact that, unlike voluntary transactions, no demonstrated preference has been made by the taxpayer; so there is no objective way of showing that he is receiving a service he wants and needs, at a price that is fair. [25]

Historical examples of widespread use

Ancient Europe

Ancient city-states in Greece and Rome depended on liturgy  contributions made by rich citizens for specific purposes for defense. A liturgy might be used, for instance, to fund the manning of a warship. Although a certain amount was assessed by magistrates, some citizens paid more than required in order to obtain popularity, influence, and sympathy among jurors in the event they were taken to court. During the Second Punic War, Quintus Maximus Fabius Verrucosus used his personal resources to pay for the release of some Roman prisoners. When the son of Scipio Africanus, who at the time was acting as de facto commander-in chief, was captured during the war against Antiochus III the Great in 190 BC, he came up with ransom himself. As Rome grew wealthier, greater use was made of private money and/or private armed forces, consisting of relatives and clients, to accomplish public objectives. Between 73 and 71 BC, Marcus Licinius Crassus and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus used their own resources to suppress the armies of Spartacus in the Third Servile War. Julius Caesar made his fortune by vanquishing pirates in the Mediterranean and then by conquering Gaul. The emergence of the modern state caused the members of the upper classes to be disarmed. [26]

Medieval Iceland

19th century interpretation of the Althing in the Icelandic Commonwealth, which authors such as David Friedman and Roderick Long believe to have some features of anarcho-capitalist society. Law speaker.jpg
19th century interpretation of the Althing in the Icelandic Commonwealth, which authors such as David Friedman and Roderick Long believe to have some features of anarcho-capitalist society.

According to David Friedman, "Medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions." [27] While not directly labeling it anarcho-capitalist, he argues that the Icelandic Commonwealth between 930 and 1262 had "some features" of an anarcho-capitalist society – while there was a single legal system, enforcement of law was entirely private and highly capitalist; and so provides some evidence of how such a society would function. "Even where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially "public" offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case and collect the resulting fine, thus fitting it into an essentially private system." [27]

American Old West

According to the research of Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill, the Old West in the United States in the period of 1830 to 1900 was similar to anarcho-capitalism in that "private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved," and that the common popular perception that the Old West was chaotic with little respect for property rights is incorrect. [28] Since squatters had no claim to western lands under federal law, extra-legal organizations formed to fill the void. Benson explains: [29]

The land clubs and claim associations each adopted their own written contract setting out the laws that provided the means for defining and protecting property rights in the land. They established procedures for registration of land claims, as well as for protection of those claims against outsiders, and for adjudication of internal disputes that arose. The reciprocal arrangements for protection would be maintained only if a member complied with the association's rules and its court's rulings. Anyone who refused would be ostracized. Boycott by a land club meant that an individual had no protection against aggression other than what he could provide himself.

According to Anderson, "Defining anarcho-capitalist to mean minimal government with property rights developed from the bottom up, the western frontier was anarcho-capitalistic. People on the frontier invented institutions that fit the resource constraints they faced." [30]

Post-feudal Sicily

The Mafia began in the 19th century. Modern scholars believe that the seeds were planted in the upheaval of Sicily's transition out of feudalism beginning in 1812 and its later annexation by mainland Italy in 1860. Under feudalism, the nobility owned most of the land and enforced law and order through their private armies. After 1812, the feudal barons steadily sold off or rented their lands to private citizens. Primogeniture was abolished, land could no longer be seized to settle debts, and one fifth of the land became private property of the peasants. [31] After Italy annexed Sicily in 1860, it redistributed a large share of public and church land to private citizens. The result was a huge boom in landowners — from 2,000 in 1812 to 20,000 by 1861. [32] With this increase in property owners and commerce came more disputes that needed settling, contracts that needed enforcing, transactions that needed oversight, and properties that needed protecting. The barons were releasing their private armies to let the state take over the job of enforcing the law, but the new authorities were not up to the task, largely due to their inexperience with capitalism. [33] Lack of manpower was also a problem; there were often fewer than 350 active policemen for the entire island. Some towns did not have any permanent police force, only visited every few months by some troops to collect malcontents, leaving criminals to operate with impunity in the interim. [34] Compounding these problems was banditry; rising food prices, [32] the loss of public and church lands, [31] and the loss of feudal commons pushed many desperate peasants to steal. In the face of rising crime, booming commerce, and inefficient authorities, property owners turned to extralegal arbitrators and protectors. These extralegal protectors eventually organized themselves into the first Mafia clans.

See also

Related Research Articles

Austrian School school of economic thought

The Austrian School is a heterodox school of economic thought that is based on methodological individualism—the concept that social phenomena result exclusively from the motivations and actions of individuals.

Murray Rothbard American economist of the Austrian School, libertarian political theorist, and historian

Murray Newton Rothbard was an American heterodox economist of the Austrian School, historian, and a political theorist whose writings and personal influence played a seminal role in the development of modern right-libertarianism. Rothbard was the founder and leading theoretician of anarcho-capitalism, a staunch advocate of historical revisionism and a central figure in the 20th-century American libertarian movement. He wrote over twenty books on political theory, revisionist history, economics and other subjects. Rothbard asserted that all services provided by the "monopoly system of the corporate state" could be provided more efficiently by the private sector and wrote that the state is "the organization of robbery systematized and writ large". He called fractional-reserve banking a form of fraud and opposed central banking. He categorically opposed all military, political and economic interventionism in the affairs of other nations. According to his protégé Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "[t]here would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard".

<i>The Machinery of Freedom</i> book

The Machinery of Freedom is a nonfiction book by David D. Friedman which advocates an anarcho-capitalist society from a utilitarian / consequentialist perspective. The book was published in 1973, with a second edition in 1989 and a third edition in 2014.

Libertarians have differing opinions on the validity of intellectual property.

Mises Institute Austrian Economics educative organization

The Mises Institute, short name for Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics, is a tax-exempt educative organization located in Auburn, Alabama, United States. It is named after Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973), because it promotes teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics and Misesian views on social and political philosophy.

Lew Rockwell American libertarian author and editor

Llewellyn Harrison Rockwell Jr. is an American author, editor, and political consultant. A libertarian and a self-professed anarcho-capitalist, he founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a non-profit dedicated to promoting the Austrian School of economics. He also started a website in 1999, LewRockwell.com, that features articles and blog entries by a number of right-wing libertarian columnists and writers.

Libertarian theories of law build upon classical liberal and individualist doctrines.

In libertarian political philosophy, a night-watchman state is a model of a state whose only functions are to provide its citizens with the military, the police, and courts, thus protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud, and enforcing property laws. The nineteenth-century UK has been described by historian Charles Townshend as standard-bearer of this form of government among Western countries. Therefore only to act as an enforcer of the Non-aggression principle.

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. The nature of capitalism is a polarizing issue among anarchists, who advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations. Capitalism is generally considered by scholars to be an economic system that includes private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange and wage labor which has generally been opposed by anarchists historically. Furthermore, since capitalism is variously defined by sources and there is no general consensus among scholars on the definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category, the designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.

The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle, or non-initiation of force, is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, aggression is defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual or their property. In contrast to pacifism, it does not forbid forceful defense.

Right-libertarianism, or right-wing libertarianism, refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate natural law, civil liberties, laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarians strongly support private property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property. This position is contrasted with that of some versions of left-libertarianism.

<i>For a New Liberty</i> book by Murray Rothbard

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto is a book by American economist and historian Murray Rothbard, in which the author promotes anarcho-capitalism. The work has been credited as an influence on modern libertarian thought and on part of the New Right.

<i>The Market for Liberty</i> book by Morris Tannehill

The Market for Liberty is an anarcho-capitalist book written by Linda and Morris Tannehill, which according to Karl Hess has become "something of a classic." It was preceded by the self-published Liberty via the Market in 1969. Mary Ruwart credits the Tannehill's book with winning her over to anarcho-capitalism. Doug Casey was also converted to anarcho-capitalism after reading the book at the behest of Jarret Wollstein. According to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, it was written just following a period of intense study of the writings of both Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. It was the first significant anarcho-capitalist work to hit the libertarian movement, coming into print a year before Rothbard's Power and Market although Rothbard's book had been written earlier.

Free-market roads is the theory that a society should have entirely private or community owned roads.

Libertarianism is variously defined by sources as there is no general consensus among scholars on the definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Scholars generally agree that libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power.

Ocean privatization is the sale of the oceans to private individuals or companies. Libertarians have long proposed such privatization.

Argumentation ethics is a proposed proof of the libertarian principle of self-ownership developed in 1988 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a Professor Emeritus with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas College of Business and Ludwig von Mises Institute Senior Fellow. Responses have mainly come from Hoppe's colleagues at the Mises Institute, among whom the argument's reception has been mixed.

Larry J. Sechrest economist

Larry James Sechrest was an American economist who advocated the ideas of the Austrian School. He was a Professor of Economics at Sul Ross State University and was director of the university's Free Enterprise Institute.

References

  1. Tucker, Benjamin,The Relation of the State to the Individual, 1890
  2. Tucker, Benjamin. "Liberty and Taxation". Liberty .
  3. The Mises Review (Vol. 10, No. 1; Spring 2004) A summary is given in a review by David Gordon .
  4. Rothbard, Murray N. (January 1975). "Society without a State". The Libertarian Forum . 7 (1).
  5. David Friedman, Police, Courts, and Laws---on the Market, David Friedman home page.
  6. Hoppe, Hans. "The Private Production of Defense" (PDF). Journal of Libertarian Studies .
  7. John Frederic Kosanke, "Civilization 101 - Elements of Security"
  8. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2003). "Introduction". The Myth of National Defense. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Inst. pp. 3–4. ISBN   0-945466-37-4.
  9. The Production of Security
  10. Cowen, Tyler. "Rejoinder to David Friedman on the Economics of Anarchy".
  11. Holcombe, Randall G. "Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable".
  12. Leeson, Peter & Stringham, Edward P (2005). "Is Government Inevitable? Comment on Holcombe's Analysis". Independent Review . SSRN   1674461 .
  13. Tannehill, Linda and Morris (1993). "Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime". The Market for Liberty. San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes. pp. 109–111. ISBN   0-930073-08-8.
  14. Tannehill, Linda and Morris (1993). "Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime". The Market for Liberty. San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes. p. 115. ISBN   0-930073-08-8.
  15. Rothbard, Murray N. (2004). Man, Economy and State with Power and Market. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute. p. 1054. ISBN   0-945466-30-7.
  16. 1 2 Villacampa, Alexander. "In a State of Anarchy". Grove City College.
  17. https://mises.org/story/1855
  18. Bond, Jonathan C. (11 October 2004). "The Price of Private Law".
  19. Rothbard, Murray N. (2004). Man, Economy and State. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute. p. 1037. ISBN   0-945466-30-7.
  20. Stromberg, Joseph R. (2003). "Mercenaries, Militias, Guerrillas, and the Defense of Minimal States and Free Societies". The Myth of National Defense. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Inst. pp. 237–238. ISBN   0-945466-37-4.
  21. Tannehill, Morris and Linda (1993). "Foreign Aggression". The Market for Liberty. San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes. p. 131. ISBN   0-930073-08-8.
  22. No Treason » 2001 » June
  23. Sechrest, Larry J. (2003). "Privateering and National Defense: Naval Warfare for Private Profit". The Myth of National Defense. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Inst. p. 258. ISBN   0-945466-37-4.
  24. Radnitzky, Gerard (2003). "Is Democracy More Peaceful than Other Forms of Government?". The Myth of National Defense. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Inst. p. 147. ISBN   0-945466-37-4.
  25. Block, Walter (2003). "National Defense and the Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Clubs". The Myth of National Defense. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Inst. p. 310. ISBN   0-945466-37-4.
  26. van Creveld, Martin (1999). The Rise and Decline of the State. Cambridge University Press. pp. 32–33, 207. ISBN   0-521-65629-X.
  27. 1 2 Friedman, David D. (1979) Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case. Retrieved 12 August 2005.
  28. Anderson, Terry L. and Hill, P. J. An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West, The Journal of Libertarian Studies
  29. Benson, Bruce L. (1998). "Private Justice in America". To Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice. New York: New York University Press. p. 101. ISBN   978-0-8147-1327-3.
  30. Probasco, Christian (2008-06-18). "Grilling Terry L. Anderson, Free-Market Environmentalist". New West.
  31. 1 2 Jason Sardell, Economic Origins of the Mafia and Patronage System in Sicily, 2009.
  32. 1 2 Oriana Bandiera, Private States and the Enforcement of Property Rights: Theory and evidence on the origins of the Sicilian mafia Archived 2012-03-19 at the Wayback Machine , 2001, pp. 8-10
  33. Gambetta (1993) , p. 94
  34. D. Mack Smith. A History of Sicily: Modern Sicily, after 1713. p. 368.