Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

a SOcIety, not in which no institution can initiate
force, but in which any institution can initiate
force."(59) This is surely a misinterpretation. With
the sin g leex c eDt ion 0 f 0 a v i d Fr i e dma n, f r e e rna r ke t
a narc his m s tar t s from the nat u r a I law pos i t ion t ha t
eve r yon e has a righ t to his own I i f e and tothe f r u its
of his own labor. It follows, they believe, that
everyone has a right to defend his life and property.
This he can do either himself, or by contracting the
services of another. Since specialization results in
both cheaper and better services, anarchists believe
t hat the a g en c i e sspe cia 1 i z i ngin s uc h s e r vice s wo u 1d
be the primary means by which protection would be handled.
But when one contracts the services of a police
com pan y t hi s me an s t hat "the agen t rna y t a k e any act ions
whie h the man hims elf wo u I d ha vether i g h t tota ke but
may not do anything which the man himself would not
have the right to do. ."(60) Since no one has the
fIght to initiate the use of violence, police companies
could not legally use violence against noninvasive individuals
and could be sued if they did. If companies
e i the r i nit i ate d for ceo r pro t e c ted thos e wh 0 did,
"they would not be competing agencies of retaliatory
force at all. Rather, they would be criminal gangs
pur e and s imp 1 e • " ( 61 ) Thus, wh i 1e Wh eel e r i s cor r e c t
in pointing out that anarchists view government as a
coercive monopoly, he is incorrect in stating that they
oppose government because it is a monopoly. They have
no objection to non-coercive monopolies, i.e., those
monopolies that maintain themselves by providing better
services at cheaper prices than any competitor. They
oppose government because it is an agency of initiated
force. Consequently, as Louis Rollins points out, far
from advocating a society in which any individual or
agency has the right to commit aggression, free market
a narc hismad v 0 cat esa" soc i e t yin wh i c h no ins tit ution
holds any authority to commit aggression."(62)
The only exception to this is the alternative propo
sed by Oa vi d F r i e dma n • Sinc e F r i e dma n i s aut iii tar ­
ian rather t han a nat ur a 1- righ t sadv0 cat e , he takes the
pos i t ion tha t pol ice and court companies would enforce
those "laws" which were most profitable. There would
s til 1 bear u 1 e 0 f 1aw, he fee 1s, sinc e not even rna ny
"murderers would wish to live under laws that permitted
the m t 0 k ill and b e k i I led . " Conseq uen t 1y, s uchIaws
as those prohibiting murder and other common crimes
would arise in every society and any agency that simply
sold "justice by deciding in favor of the highest
bidder" would be driven out of business. "That would
349