How freedom will work....

Hmm... Anarchy held together by an organization sounds like an oxymoron, but I'll listen. I would be interested to hear how he addresses the Tragedy of the Commons.

We're happy to see you using the Amazon book conduit! It looks like you have some really nice recommendations here on your blog. We appreciate the feedback you sent us, and we look forward to taking your suggestion into consideration in the future.

We would love to make sure that you continue to have a good experience here so feel free to drop us more feedback whenever you have anymore suggestions, or even if you have a question for us. Have a great day!

Lauren, Vox Help

I think a requisite to have a meaningful discussion is a common language between the participants. That is, everyone must be on the same page to what the word "anarchy" denotes. For most men it means chaos and no laws or no rules. Alternatively, it might mean a belief in laws, rules, order (as opposed to chaos), but no government. The former a genuine libertarian does not believe in. Instead it is the latter.

Next it seems appropriate to define government. When this occurs it becomes apparent that it is not true that anarchy, as a libertarian would define it, would be held together by an organization. It would, however, be "held together," in a manner of speaking, by organizations (plural).

(More accurately: All social systems require public support. No organization by itself holds anything together, not even government. Government is a minority of the population which depends on a supportive public, otherwise it would collapse.)

Government is a coercive monopolist in a particular territory of ultimate decision making or jurisdiction. Disputes between parties are ultimately up to the government, as a sovereign, to resolve, which include conflicts that involve the government itself. Being that it can do this, it can make law, i.e., legislate and tax. (See this.)

It does this without individual consent making it not a voluntarily institution. (See this.) Unlike the interactions most of us have in our daily life, government works on principles that are the opposite of what most people consider just interactions. If robbery is wrong, then it is wrong. It can be an individual man who robs his neighbor, two men who rob a third lone man "democratically," a king robbing multiple people, or whatnot. And if slavery is wrong, it is wrong. (Thus, libertarianism is all for laws [and voluntary positive laws]. These are the intuitive laws that most men believe in. Laws that derive from us being self-owners of our physical bodies and owners of our other property we obtained either by homesteading or voluntary exchange.)

Now I am not sure how the tragedy of the commons fits into this at all. This is a problem, in my view, with socialism and common ownership; not private property. Environmentalists complain, for example, that the overutilization of fishing lakes is a market problem. (See "Conservation in the Free Market" in this.) But it is precisely that they are owned collectively that causes these kinds of problems. No one suffers capital loss if fish disappear. The only ownership of the fish is the fish one person or company takes right now. Someone that does not take as many fish as they can get now might not have the opportunity in the future. Thus, there is overutilization. A private owner, though, would not just own the value he can derive from the lake in the present but also in the future. The incentive would then be to derive present income without destroying the capital (future) stock. It is only private ownership and private calculation that makes this possible. There is ownership in both the production factors (capital) and the output (products to sell) of production. The tragedy of the commons and overutilization is prone to occur with socialism.

***

I assume Xelent does not mind, I would like to recommend a few essays that I have found useful as it relates to the subject:

"Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy" by Alfred G. Cuzán
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf

I particularly like this essay. Alfred Cuzán reasons that you cannot escape from "anarchy." It comes down to which type of anarchy you want: the anarchy of the political or the anarchy of the market. He concludes that the anarchy of the free market is the better of the two.

"Society Without a State" by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

The great, late Rothbard defines what he means by anarchy and state. It is explained that anarchy does not assume men are perfect, or anything of that nature. There is a look at the private law of merchants in the Middle Ages and a modern day example. Rothbard then tackles the complex issue of how disputes would be resolved in a libertarian society.

"Market Chosen Law" by Edward Stringham
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_3.pdf

Stringham's essay is a bit different than a lot of other essays on the subject. One of the great insights from this essay is that there exists today private law; you just have to look for it. He uses examples that mimic the question of law in anarcho-capitalism, and by doing this he demonstrates the feasibility of purely private law. This is done through "local" example, "non-local," and the "integration" of the two.

"Private Police: A Note" by Patrick Tinsley
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

This addresses how security is a divisible thing, why the market in law would not leave behind the poor, and why corruption would be relatively less in a free society.

"Order Without Law: Where Will Anarchists Keep the Madmen?" by John D. Sneed
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_7.pdf

Of course the title speaks for itself. And Sneed explains why wars between defense agents are unlikely.

"Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts, and the Police" by David Osterfeld
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_3.pdf

Libertarians are not against law but legislation, the author writes. So the question is if law is possible without legislation. He looks at the past and answers yes. Osterfeld explains how voluntary bilateral law would exist and third party arbitration. Etc.

"Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf

Hoppe argues that public goods theory is erroneous and does not justify the State providing these goods. He then relates this to the issue of security production.

"The Private Production of Defense" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

This seminal essays overviews Hobbes case for the state, insurance, how a free market of protection could work, etc.

"Chaos Theory: Two Essays in Market Anarchy" by Robert Murphy
http://www.mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

This pamphlet is a unique look at the possibility of law in a free society. He relates how law could relate to credit reports and insurance. The second essay is on private defense.