"Libertarians frequently disagree (sometimes rather violently) over what constitutes objective law and justice - some believing in patents and copyrights, others not; some supporting libel and slander laws, others not; some opposing abortion, others not; some denouncing capital punishment, others not; and some defending animal rights, others not.
So, the question is: objective law and justice ~as judged by whom~? No one "retaliates" thinking that he's not objectively justified in doing so. If he didn't think that the force he is using were justified retaliation, then he would view it as the ~initiation~ of force, not as retaliatory force!
How then do you reconcile conflicting ~claims~ to what constitutes objective law and justice - to what constitutes justified retaliation? After all, one person's retaliation is often another person's aggression; one person's justice, another person's crime. For example, suppose that I, as a doctor, have just performed a
partial-birth abortion on your daughter, thereby terminating the life of a son that she would otherwise have given birth to. You, as the prospective grandfather, are incensed at my action, and arrive at my office to arrest me for the murder of your grandson. I, on the other hand, see the arrest as a violation of my right to perform a legitimate medical procedure. So I call the office security guard to protect me from someone whom I regard as an anti-abortionist thug.
Question: Who has the objective right to "retaliate" here? Well, if you're an anarchist, it depends on your view of partial-birth abortion, doesn't it?!
Anarchists may nevertheless reply that there is an ~objective~ right and wrong, even if people disagree about what it is. ~Either~ partial-birth abortion is a right, in which case, the father is objectively wrong for trying to arrest me, ~or~ partial-birth abortion is the ~violation~ of a right, in which case, the father is
objectively right for trying to arrest me. If the former, then the father has no objective right to retaliate; if the latter, then I have no objective right to retaliate.
Very well. Then who has an objective right to retaliate? Most anarcho-capitalists would probably claim that I do - that partial-birth abortion should be legal. But there are a lot of people in our society who would disagree, claiming that the procedure is tantamount to infanticide. Observe that a commitment to individual rights doesn't help us here, for this is a question concerning the
proper ~interpretation~ of the principle of individual rights.
The problem with the anarcho-capitalist position is quite simple: Since you and I disagree about which action is just, there is no practical way for us to ~implement~ the idea that it is only the party with objective justice on its side that has the right to retaliate. In order to implement such a principle, we would first have to agree on the justice or injustice of partial-birth abortion. But if we were in agreement, then it is unlikely that the issue would have arisen to begin with. Either I wouldn't have performed the abortion, or you wouldn't have been trying to arrest me.
In order to be practiced - in order to be implemented - moral principles have to be accessible to human judgment; they have to be capable of being recognized. Yes, there is an "objective" principle of justice here, but it is of no practical value in an anarchist society, if people cannot agree on what it is. The idea that whoever has objective justice on his side has the right to enforce it means that whoever ~thinks~ that he has objective justice on his side ~must view himself~ as having the right to enforce it, which can easily lead to a state of violent conflict and eventually to civil war.
Furthermore, if there is no single, objectively identifiable body of law, people have no idea what is expected of them - what they can and cannot do without offending someone who has the power to enforce his own private version of justice against anyone who happens to violate it. Imagine living in such a society, never knowing whom you're going to offend next, and whose "retaliation" you're likely to incur for some unknown crime that you've just unknowingly committed. The fear and insecurity would be devastating.
The only way to employ retaliatory force without precipitating both violent conflict and extreme insecurity is to assign its use to a monopolistic agency, which has the ~exclusive~ right to decide what is objectively just - to determine what is and is not permitted - and to enforce its decision. The alternative is the very "chaos and anarchy" which anarcho-capitalists typically dismiss as a caricature of their position. In fact, it is not a caricature at all, but the actual result of attempting to put their ideas into practice.
Anarchists will often reply that the market can provide the kind of dispassionate arbitration and adjudication that is required to eliminate the influence of whim on the prosecution of an alleged crime. A government, they say, is not required. But an exclusive arbiter is a de facto government, regardless of whether or not it is called that by its proponents, since it assumes the right to enforce its decision against any and all dissenters. What you would have under anarcho-capitalism in that case is competing governments - agencies competing for a monopoly of law within a given geographical
area.
The market for justice must have some objective guidelines as to what constitutes proper adjudication, retaliation and punishment, and these guidelines must be enforced. Otherwise, a lynch mob would have as much right to decide my guilt or innocence as anyone else. Who determines these guidelines? Whoever does is declaring himself a legal monopoly - i.e., a government."
Who can refute this argument?
