Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society

Cover......Page 1
ANARCHY AND LEGAL ORDER......Page 3
Title......Page 5
Copyright......Page 6
Dedication......Page 7
Contents......Page 11
Preface......Page 15
Introduction......Page 19
I. A REASONABLE CONCEPTION OF THE GOOD LIFE WILL INVOLVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF BOTH WELFARE AND RIGHT ACTION......Page 25
A. Well-Being Is Diverse and Lacks a Substantive Essence......Page 26
B. Welfare Is Not Preference-Satisfaction......Page 27
2. Emotions Necessarily Involve Cognitions......Page 28
3. Experiencing an Emotion Is Not Ordinarily the Goal of a Reasonable Action......Page 29
4. Welfare Is Not an Emotion......Page 31
5. Well-Being Is Not Identical with or Dependent on One’s Emotional Reaction to One’s Condition......Page 32
2. We Take Something to Be a Dimension of Well-Being if We Treat It as a Basic Reason for Action......Page 33
3. Our Judgments about Harms Point Us to Insights about the Nature of Well-Being......Page 35
4. It May Be Self-Contradictory to Deny That Some Putative Aspects of Welfare Provide Reasons for Action......Page 36
5. Cross-Cultural Consensus May Help Us to Identify Basic Aspects of Well- Being......Page 37
6. We May Be Able to Justify Claims about Well-Being by Seeing How Well They Fit into Coherent Webs of Belief......Page 38
E. The Various Dimensions of Welfare Are Incommensurable and Non-Fungible......Page 39
F. To Recognize Something as an Aspect of Welfare Is to See a Reason to Pursue It for the Benefit of the Moral Patient of Whose......Page 41
G. Welfare Is Reaction-Independent and Varied......Page 42
B. The Principle of Recognition Calls for the Acknowledgment of All and Only Real Aspects of Well-Being as Worthy Objects of Action......Page 43
1. The Principle of Fairness Protects the Basic Moral Equality of Sentients Capable of Flourishing......Page 45
3. The Principle of Fairness Precludes Distinctions Not Made in Pursuit of Genuine Aspects of Well-Being......Page 46
4. The Principle of Fairness Precludes Distinctions an Actor Would Be Unwilling to Accept If Roles Were Reversed......Page 47
5. Accepting the Principle of Fairness Does Not Mean Embracing Impartial Consequentialism......Page 48
7. Reasonableness Requires Fairness......Page 50
1. Recognizing the Value and Incommensurability of Basic Aspects of Well-Being Rules out Making Harm to Any the Goal of One’s Action or a Means to One’s Goal......Page 51
2. Purposefully Harming an Instance of an Authentic Aspect of Well-Being Is Unreasonable......Page 52
3. Instrumentally Harming an Instance of an Authentic Aspect of Well-Being Is Unreasonable because Aspects of Well- Being Can......Page 53
4. Accepting the Principle of Respect Is Consistent with Using Force Defensively......Page 55
5. The Principle of Respect Safeguards the Basic Aspects of Well-Being......Page 56
F. We Act Reasonably When We Accept the Reality and Diversity of the Basic Aspects of Well-Being and the Essential Moral Equality of Those Capable of Flourishing......Page 57
IV. A FLOURISHING LIFE IS A REASONABLE LIFE......Page 58
II. AGGRESSION INVOLVES UNREASONABLY INJURING OTHERS’ BODIES OR INTERFERING WITH THEIR JUST POSSESSORY INTERESTS......Page 62
A. The Requirements of Practical Reasonableness Safeguard the Basic Aspects of Well-Being......Page 63
C. The Principle of Fairness Precludes Unreasonable, Albeit Unintentional, Harms to Basic Aspects of Well-Being, and Requires Compensation even for Nonculpable Injuries......Page 64
B. Rules Regarding Possession Can Be Seen as Conventions That Are Contingent, Instrumental, and Derivative, but Tightly Constrained by the Principle of Fairness......Page 67
C. Actual Possession Itself Deserves Protection under the Principle of Fairness......Page 69
D. Truisms about the Human Situation Ground Multiple Desiderata That Provide Further Reasons for Narrowing the Range of Possible Just Possessory Rules......Page 70
1. The Principle of Fairness Constrains the Range of Reasonable Possessory Rules......Page 82
2. The First Baseline Rule Provides for Initial Acquisition through Effective Possession......Page 83
3. The Second Baseline Rule Provides for Just Possessors’ Unconstrained Transfer of Their Possessions to Others at Their Discretion......Page 91
4. The Third Baseline Rule Provides for Just Possessors’ Exclusive Control over Their Possessions......Page 96
5. The Various Desiderata Provide Strong Support for the Baseline Rules......Page 101
F. The Principle of Fairness Supports Baseline Possessory Rules......Page 105
2. The Principle of Fairness Establishes a Strong Presumption against Slavery......Page 107
3. Enslavement Cannot Be Justified as a Means of Punishment, as a Way of Enforcing a Putative Obligation, or as a Means of Self-Defense......Page 108
5. Others’ Bodies and Labor Cannot Justly Be Subjected to Possessory Claims......Page 110
2. Nonhuman Sentients Can Flourish......Page 111
3. The Argument from Marginal Cases Withstands Challenge......Page 116
4. Affirming That Nonhuman Animals Are Morally Considerable Does Not Undermine the Claim That Humans Are Morally Considerable......Page 122
5. Given that Nonhuman Sentients Are Morally Considerable, They Cannot Reasonably Be Treated as Objects of Just Possessory Claims......Page 124
6. Nonhuman Sentients Are Protected by the Principle of Respect and the Principle of Fairness, and Thus Cannot Be Enslaved......Page 125
1. A Reasonable Account of Possession Is Inhospitable to Possessory Claims on Abstractions......Page 126
3. A PP Exception Might Be Defended on the Basis of an Argument from Incentives or an Argument from “Fair Returns”......Page 127
i. The incentives argument is unpersuasive......Page 128
iii. Production may not depend on financial appeal......Page 129
a. A PP exception rests, at minimum, on shaky ground......Page 130
d. The incentives argument for a PP exception cannot show that such an exception is clearly desirable......Page 131
vi. The incentives argument provides little support for a PP exception......Page 136
ii. Judgments about the fairness of transactions depend on prior judgments about background rules governing the transactions......Page 137
iii. It is unclear what it means to talk about a “fair return” apart from what purchasers actually want......Page 138
v. The “fair return” argument provides little reason to support a PP exception......Page 139
iii. PP claims could only be defined by entities with considerable discretionary power, with obvious potential for abuse......Page 140
vi. Potential negative consequences provide independent reasons to oppose a PP exception......Page 141
7. There Is Little Reason to Support a PP Exception to the Baseline Rules......Page 142
i. Agreements are unlikely to provide effective substitutes for legal protections for PP claims......Page 143
iii. An agreement featuring liquidated damages for copying would be unlikely to achieve the equivalent of PP protection......Page 144
iv. Attempts to create the equivalent of PP protection by agreement could not realistically employ shrink-wrap or click-wrap agreements......Page 146
9. There Is Limited Justification for Legal Protection for PP Claims or the Equivalent......Page 147
E. The Baseline Rules Do Not Provide Protection for Claims on Others’ Justly Acquired Possessions......Page 148
F. The Baseline Rules Limit Just Possessory Claims to Non-Sentient Physical Objects......Page 149
1. Neither Any Particular Possession nor the Capacity to Possess Seems Obviously Like an Authentic Dimension of Welfare......Page 150
2. Possessions Themselves Seem to Be Instrumentally Rather than Intrinsically Valuable......Page 151
3. We Don’t Characteristically Treat Possession as a Basic Reason for Action......Page 152
4. We Sometimes Regard Deprivation of Possessions as a Harm......Page 153
5. It Is Not Obvious That Denying the Possibility of Just Possessory Claims Would Ensnare One in Self-Contradiction......Page 154
8. There Isn’t Much in the Way of Convergent Support for the Notion That Possession Is a Basic Aspect of Well-Being......Page 155
9. Even if Possession Were a Basic Aspect of Well-Being, the Principle of Fairness, Rather than the Principle of Respect, Would Still Be Decisive as Regards Most Instances of Interference with Others’ Possessions......Page 156
1. Attacks on Possessions Need Not Be Attacks on Basic Aspects of Welfare......Page 157
4. The Principle of Respect Will Not Likely Be the Standard That Rules Out Most Instances of Interference with Others’ Possessory Claims......Page 158
D. Not Every Nonconsensual Use of People’s Possessions Is Tantamount to Enslavement......Page 159
1. Personal Moral Choices and Systemic Legal Standards Flow in Different Ways from the Baseline Possessory Rules......Page 160
2. The Principle of Fairness May License Some Ad Hoc Exceptions to the Baseline Rules at the Level of Personal Choice......Page 161
3. Legal Rules Will Require Compensation even for Morally Acceptable Interference with Others’ Possessions......Page 163
4. The Extent to Which It Is Reasonable to Use Force to Stop Interference with One’s Justly Acquired Possessions Will Vary from Situation to Situation......Page 166
5. Just Legal Rules Should Protect Those Who Use Force to Defend against Physical Aggression, But Not Those Who Use Excessive Force to Defend Possessions against Interference......Page 168
6. Just Legal Rules Provide General, But Not Exceptionless, Protections for Possessory Claims and Seek to Minimize the Use of Force......Page 169
F. Just Possessory Claims, though Not Exceptionless, Are Robust......Page 170
VII. KEY REQUIREMENTS OF PRACTICAL REASONABLENESS CAN BE ENCAPSULATED IN THE NONAGGRESSION MAXIM......Page 171
II. PEACEFUL, VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS AN ASPECT OF AND A CRUCIAL PRECONDITION FOR A FLOURISHING LIFE......Page 175
B. State Actors Behave in Ways, and Make Claims, That Ordinary People Do Not......Page 177
2. The Principle of Fairness Suggests That People Should Be Seen as Fundamentally Equal in Authority......Page 178
4. There Is Ordinarily Good Reason to Treat Nonconsensual Authority as Illegitimate, and State Authority Is Nonconsensual......Page 179
D. State Actors’ Interference with Other People’s Possessions Needs to Be Warranted because of Their Inconsistency with the Baseline Rules......Page 181
E. State Actors’ Attacks on People’s Bodies Require Justification in Virtue of the Principle of Respect and the Principle of Fairness......Page 182
A. Peaceful, Voluntary Cooperation Can Happen without the State’s Assistance......Page 183
B. The Strong Presumption against Nonconsensual Rule and Noninterference with People’s Justly Acquired Possessions Cannot Be Overcome by the Claim That the State Is Needed to Safeguard Cooperation......Page 185
D. People Can Be Expected to Cooperate to Protect Their Opportunities for Future Interaction......Page 188
E. People Can Be Expected to Cooperate to Avoid Nonviolent Social Sanctions......Page 189
H. Morality Is a Crucial Source of Peaceful Cooperation......Page 190
I. People Can Be Expected to Cooperate because They Accept Legal Requirements Mandating Cooperation as Legitimate......Page 192
2. Non-State Legal Regimes Could Use Force to Prevent, End, or Remedy Predatory Behavior......Page 193
ii. The kinds of restraints that encourage cooperation generally would tend to dispose the officials of non-state legal regimes to behae peaceably......Page 194
v. States are more dangerous than non-state legal regimes would be because of the special temptations they confront......Page 195
vii. There is no reason either to expect non-state legal regimes to be aggressors or to ignore the risks that states and state officials will be aggressive in ways these regimes would not......Page 196
4. Force Could Be among the Factors Used to Address the Problem of Predatory Behavior in a Stateless Society......Page 197
K. It Would Be Unwise to Trust State Officials to Foster Peaceful, Voluntary Cooperation......Page 198
L. The State Is Not Needed to Protect or Promote Peaceful, Voluntary Cooperation......Page 199
B. A Public Good Is Available to All When Available to Any......Page 202
2. The Good of Preventing, Ending, or Remedying Environmentally Mediated Injuries Is Often Private......Page 203
3. The Good of Ordinary Defense against Aggression Is Private......Page 204
4. The Fact That a Private Good Generates Positive Externalities Does Not Make It a Public Good......Page 205
ii. Environmental goods with distinctive characteristics qualify as public......Page 206
iii. General preemptive defense is a public good......Page 207
D. The Public Goods Argument Holds That the Need for Public Goods Entails the Creation of the State......Page 208
1. The Quest for an Optimal Level of Public Goods Provision Is a Will-O’-the-Wisp......Page 209
3. A Transactional Conception of Optimality Is Defensible, but Provides No Support for the Public Goods Argument......Page 210
iii. Revealed preferences are, in any case, decisive measures of subjective valuation in ways that unexpressed ones are not—even if they could be identifed......Page 211
iv. It is improbable that there is one quantity of any public good which everyone would have reason to prefer prospectively under ordinary circumstances......Page 212
v. Counterfactuals of freedom are likely to lack truth-values or to be false......Page 213
1. There Are Multiple Paths to the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods......Page 214
2. Rational Actors Will Often Contribute to the Provision of Public Goods to Avoid Suffering Various Risks to Themselves......Page 215
3. Assurance Agreements Can Sometimes Facilitate the Provision of Public Goods......Page 217
4. In Limited Cases, Bundling Can Facilitate the Provision of Public Goods......Page 218
5. Moral Duties, Social Norms, and Concern with Reputation and Social Pressure Can All Facilitate the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods......Page 219
1. There Is No Clear Path from the Importance of a Public Good to Its Putatively Necessary Provision by the State......Page 220
3. A Non-Consequentialist Reading of the Importance Claim Fails to Justify the Creation and Maintenance of the State......Page 221
H. It Is Not Obvious That Forcible Provision of a Public Good Would Be Effective......Page 224
J. The Public Goods Argument Does Not Offer a Plausible Justification for State Authority......Page 225
A. The State Is a Tool of Domination......Page 226
2. The State Is Reasonably Seen as a Creation of Aggression......Page 227
3. Aggression—of Which State Action Is a Paradigm Case—Is a Constitutive Characteristic of Class Rule......Page 228
5. Wealth and Social Prominence Are Related to Membership in the Ruling Class in More than One Way......Page 229
6. The Ruling Class Need Not Be Thought of as Monolithic......Page 230
7. Elites Justify the Actual or Threatened Use of Aggression through Appeals to Public Well-Being......Page 231
8. Spillover Effects of State Policies Designed to Benefit Elites Can Have Favored Consequences for Other Privileged Groups......Page 232
2. The State Engages in and Sanctions Large-Scale Aggression......Page 233
4. The State Seeks to Manage or Plan the Economy at the Micro and Macro Levels......Page 234
6. The State Empowers Actors Who Can Be Counted on to Pursue Their Own Interests and Those of Their Cronies and Who Are in Large Part Unaccountable......Page 235
8. The State Retards Legal Experimentation and Flexibility......Page 236
ii. Primitive accumulation led to widespread reductions in economic well-being, social influence, and freedom for many people......Page 237
iv. Theft, engrossment, and enslavement underlie the power of the rulers and the liabilities experienced by the ruled......Page 239
i. The state benefits the wealthy and harms the poor......Page 240
ii. State regulations boost the wealth of the wealthy and well-connected......Page 241
iii. Regulations help to make and keep people poor......Page 244
iv. The state is a persistent source of privilege for the favored and of liability for the disfavored......Page 245
11. The State Fosters Oppression on the Basis of Ethnicity, Gender, and Sexual Identity......Page 246
D. Its Involvement in Aggression and Its Role as a Tool of Class Rule Make the State an Enemy of Peaceful, Voluntary Cooperation......Page 249
VII. EMBRACING PEACEFUL, VOLUNTARY COOPERATION MEANS REJECTING THE STATE......Page 250
A. The Difficulties Associated with the Provision of the Putative Good of General Preemptive Defense Do Not Justify the Existen......Page 252
B. Defense Services in a Stateless Society Could Presumably Be Delivered in Multiple, Complementary Ways......Page 253
2. Defense Providers in a Stateless Society Could Be Expected to Hold Their Costs under Control......Page 254
5. The Absence of a State or State-Like Entity in a Region Reduces the Likelihood of Collective Targeting of Those Residing in......Page 255
7. The Costs of Defending a Stateless Society Would Be even Lower if the World Were Entirely Free of States and State-Like Enti......Page 257
D. The Forcible Provision of General Preemptive Defense Would Be Associated with Great Dangers......Page 258
E. The Value of General Preemptive Defense Does Not Provide Any Special Basis for the Claim That the State Is Necessary......Page 259
I. FORCIBLY IMPOSING LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN A STATELESS SOCIETY IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE ON THE SAME GROUNDS AS AGGRESSION BY THE STATE\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0......Page 260
II. THERE MIGHT SEEM TO BE A TENSION BETWEEN OPPOSING THE STATE AND SUPPORTING THE IDEA OF LAW......Page 261
B. A Polycentric Legal Order Would Feature Considerable Institutional Diversity......Page 262
i. Complete legal uniformity should not be expected in a stateless society......Page 263
iii. Actual or threatened aggression is not a satisfactory means of ensuring legal uniformity in a stateless society......Page 264
D. Multiple Pressures Could Lead to Convergence on Legal Rules across Regimes......Page 265
E. Moral and Institutional Diversity Would Likely Generate at Least Some Legal Diversity......Page 266
C. Disputes between Participants in Different Regimes Linked by Appropriate Agreements Could also Be Resolved Consensually......Page 267
A. Moral Rights That Are Logically Prior to Legal Ones Would Limit Just Options within a Polycentric, Consent-Based Legal Order......Page 268
2. If Most or All Significant Rights Were Fully Dependent on Action by a Legal Regime, It Is Unclear That There Could Be a Way of Giving Content to the Idea of Voluntary Consent to the Regime’s Rules......Page 269
3. There Are Multiple Possible Moral Positions regarding the Status of Legal Rights in a Stateless Society......Page 270
4. There Are Multiple Possible Moral Positions regarding the Status of Legal Rights Related to Possession, in Particular......Page 272
C. A Legal Order Can Reasonably Be Polycentric even if There Are Objective, Pre-Legal Rights......Page 273
A. Using Force against Outlaws Could Be Justified in Limited Circumstances......Page 275
C. Regimes Can Often Avoid State-Like Behavior in Part by Avoiding Contact with Outlaws That Is Not Regulated by Clear Agreemen......Page 276
D. A Regime Can Defend Participants against Aggressive Outlaws and Demand Compensation from Them without Engaging in State-Like Aggression......Page 277
VII. A LEGAL REGIME IN A STATELESS SOCIETY WOULD BE MORALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM A STATE IN IMPORTANT WAYS......Page 279
A. A Stateless Society Would Be Crime-Free......Page 281
B. “Crime” Is a Statist Category......Page 282
1. Warrants for the Use of Force against Those Who Harm Others Aggressively Are Limited......Page 283
i. Restitution is a vital means of rectification......Page 284
ii. The baseline possessory rules and the principle of fairness require economic compensation for unjustified injuries to other’ bodies and possessions that can be understood in economic terms......Page 285
iii. Liability to compensate others for aggressive harms one has caused ought to be strict......Page 288
iv. Compensation for damage to or loss of possessions should be the remedy for violations of enforceable agreements......Page 289
v. Compensation should not ordinarily be available for purely communicative acts......Page 292
vi. Compensation should not ordinarily be available for the non-fraudulent dissemination of false information......Page 296
vii. Just legal rules will not provide for the imposition of liability on people for injuries they have putatively done to theemselves......Page 297
viii. Economic liability should not be imposed for failures to fulfill positive duties not grounded in enforceable agreements......Page 298
xi. A legal regime that requires restitution for injuries to bodies or possessions is preferable to a state regulatory apparatus......Page 299
xii. Restitution can and should play a crucial role in rectifying injuries......Page 300
iii. Purposefully harming a basic aspect of well-being violates the principle of respect......Page 301
a. Deterrent attacks on people’s possessions are unjustifiable for the same reason other misappropriations of people’s possessions are unjustifiable......Page 302
c. Taking others’ possessions for deterrent purposes is unjustifiable......Page 303
vi. Imposing deterrent penalties is probably inconsistent with the requirements of practical reasonableness......Page 305
a. The notion of retribution would seem to be sensible only if harming one person could benefit anyone......Page 307
c. It is also difficult to see what it might mean to confer a benefit on “the order of justice”......Page 308
iii. Accountability does not require retribution......Page 309
iv. The principle of fairness does not require retribution......Page 310
vi. There is little reason to regard the putative goodness of retributive balancing as logically primitive......Page 311
viii. The notion of retribution is implausible......Page 312
5. The Need to Restrain Those Committed to Ongoing Programs of Aggression May Sometimes Justify Confinement......Page 313
7. Rejection Is Morally Problematic......Page 315
8. Rehabilitation Is Desirable but Cannot Be Achieved Using Force......Page 316
D. The Category of “Crime” Is Dangerous......Page 318
E. “Crime” Rates Might Be Expected to Fall in the State’s Absence......Page 319
A. Legal Institutions in a Stateless Society Could Offer Remedies for Environmentally Mediated Injuries and Injuries to Sentient Nonhuman Animals and to Human Persons Incapable of Protecting Themselves......Page 320
1. A Stateless Society Could Deal Successfully with the Problem of Environmentally Mediated Injuries......Page 321
2. Preventing, Ending, or Remedying Many Environmentally Mediated Injuries Will Be Easier When Identifiable Persons or Groups Are Responsible for Particular Things......Page 322
3. A Just Legal System Offering Compensation for Injuries Could Prevent the Externalization of the Costs of Harms to Bodies and Possessions......Page 323
4. A Just Legal Regime in a Stateless Society Could Deal Satisfactorily with Cases in Which Causal Responsibility for Environmentally Mediated Injuries Was Unclear......Page 324
i. The state is not always the friend of the environment......Page 325
iii. The state has limited the availability of remedies for environmentally mediated injuries......Page 326
i. Regulation is not superior to a compensation-focused system of preventing, ending, or remedying environmentally mediated injuries......Page 327
ii. Expert information possessed by the state need not be superior to the information available to non-state actors and need not be expected to be used in ways superior to the ways in which non-state actors could be expected to use the information available to them\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0......Page 328
iii. Collective liability need not be the province exclusively of the state......Page 329
v. Environmentally mediated injuries can be addressed absent state action......Page 330
7. Collective Action in Support of Efforts Designed to Rectify Environmentally Mediated Injuries Is Possible in a Stateless Society......Page 331
8. The Mechanisms That Enable People to Rectify Environmentally Mediated Injuries Will also Permit Them to Engage in Conservation......Page 332
C. Just Legal Regimes in a Stateless Society Could Provide Appropriate Protections for Vulnerable Persons and Sentient Nonhuman Animals......Page 333
IV. JUST LEGAL REGIMES CAN RECTIFY INJURIES WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE STATE......Page 336
I. JUST LEGAL RULES AND INSTITUTIONS IN A STATELESS SOCIETY COULD FACILITATE LIBERATING SOCIAL CHANGE USING NONAGGRESSIVE MEANS\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0......Page 338
B. Aggression Is Central to Statist Politics......Page 339
D. Political Action Could and Would Take Place in a Stateless Society......Page 340
E. Political Action in a Stateless Society Might Be an Expression of Political or Cultural Anarchism......Page 341
2. The Legal Arena Would Be an Important Site for Political Action in a Stateless Society......Page 342
3. Political Action Outside the Legal Arena Could Take a Variety of Forms......Page 343
G. Stateless Politics Could Lead Effectively to Positive Change Using Complementary Legal and Extralegal Strategies......Page 345
A. Upholding Just Legal Rules Would Lead to the Redistribution of Wealth from the Privileged to the Victims of State-Perpetrate and State-Sanctioned Aggression......Page 346
2. The Statist Model Focuses on Using State Power to Redistribute Wealth in the Interests of Remedying the Effects of Bad Luck......Page 347
4. The Stateless Model Could Achieve Many of the Goals of the Statist Model, but Using Different Means and for Somewhat Different Reasons......Page 348
3. Eliminating Privilege Would Help to Improve the Lives of Workers......Page 349
5. Ending Privilege Could Help to Reduce Rent-Seeking, Poverty, and Elite Power......Page 350
2. Existing Possessory Claims Are Often Illegitimate......Page 351
3. Many Specific Past Injustices Could Be Corrected......Page 352
5. Compensating People for Past Injustices Could Involve the Redistribution of Significant Amounts of Wealth in a Stateless Society......Page 353
E. The Radical Homesteading of Directly or Indirectly Stolen Resources Could Be an Appropriate Means of Redistribution......Page 354
1. Solidaristic Action Could Play a Key Role in Effective Non-State Responses to Poverty and Economic Insecurity......Page 355
3. Solidaristic Action Could Flow from Sensitivity to Multiple, Compatible Reasons for Anarchism......Page 356
4. Solidarity Would Be a Useful Means of Promoting Freedom......Page 357
6. It Is Not Reasonable to Use Force to Effect Solidaristic Redistribution......Page 358
G. Peaceful, Voluntary Cooperation through Exchange Is a Crucial Means of Redistributing Wealth......Page 361
2. Deprivation Is a Crucial Concern for Multiple Reasons......Page 362
4. The State Actively Redistributes Wealth away from Economically Vulnerable People......Page 363
5. A Range of Redistributive Strategies Could Combine to Enable People to Deal Effectively with the Problem of Poverty in a Stateless Society......Page 364
6. Eliminating State Inefficiency and State-Secured Privilege Could Reduce Economic Insecurity while also Increasing the Funds Available for Solidaristic Redistribution......Page 365
7. Solidaristic Redistribution Could Be Effective in a Stateless Society without Backing by the State......Page 366
8. Stateless Redistribution Could Help to Meet the Challenge of Poverty......Page 367
I. Just Legal Rules and Institutions in a Stateless Society Would both Foster and Effect Redistribution......Page 368
2. Corporate Central Planners Face Serious Knowledge Problems......Page 369
1. The State Contributes Significantly to the Creation and Maintenance of Large, Hierarchical Firms......Page 371
2. The State Has Helped to Funnel Wealth to Members of the Ruling Class and Their Cronies, Who Might Be Expected to Prefer Hierarchical Firms......Page 372
3. State Action Has also Helped to Make and Keep Firms Large......Page 373
4. The State Underwrites the Existing Pattern of Firm Structure, Control, and Investment......Page 375
D. The State Places Roadblocks in the Way of Creating Alternatives to Large, Hierarchical Corporations......Page 376
E. Worker Control and Worker Participation Are Accompanied by Significant Economic Advantages......Page 377
F. Structural Changes Could Foster the Emergence of Democratic and Participatory Workplaces......Page 379
A. Legal Rules That Safeguard Autonomy Make It Possible for People to Opt for Diverse Lifestyles and to Promote Fairness and Inclusion......Page 380
i. People could explore varied lifestyle and cultural options in a stateless society without engaging in the kinds of conflict Over these Issues that seem very typical in a statist society......Page 381
ii. The state’s existence leads to unavoidable conflicts over different ways of being human......Page 382
iii. A stateless society’s institutions would allow people to avoid conflicts over lifestyles and cultural markers that are endemic to life Under the State\'s rule......Page 383
3. Aggression Could Not Reasonably Be Used to Promote Particular Lifestyle Options......Page 384
4. Law Could Create the Context for the Pursuit of a Culture of Freedom in a Stateless Society......Page 385
2. Affirming Individuality Is Quite Compatible with Affirming Non-Oppressive Community and Relationship......Page 386
ii. The cultural anarchist should and could effectively oppose arbitrary discrimination......Page 387
iii. Just legal rules and institutions in a stateless society would reduce the likelihood of discrimination without interfering with freedom of association......Page 388
v. Cultural-anarchist values would be inconsistent with statist nationalism, but not necessarily with localism......Page 390
vii. Cultural anarchism would lead people to oppose those lifestyles and cultural forms that are destructive or that involve systematic unfairness......Page 391
4. Whether Cultural Anarchists Challenged Intra-Familial Dynamics Would Depend on How Families Embodied and Transmitted Their Values......Page 392
6. Cultural Anarchism Would Seek Ways of Opposing Nonviolent Subordination, Exclusion, and Deprivation within the Framework Provided by the Rules Enforced by Just Legal Regimes......Page 393
VI. JUST LEGAL RULES IN A STATELESS SOCIETY WOULD CONDUCE TO POSITIVE BUT NONAGGRESSIVE SOCIAL CHANGE\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0......Page 394
A. A Stateless Society’s Legal Order Can Embody Leftist Concerns without the Need for an Aggressive State Apparatus......Page 396
B. Concern with Subordination Helps to Render the Position I Defend Here Leftist......Page 397
C. The Position I Defend Here Is Leftist in Virtue of Its Opposition to Exclusion......Page 398
D. The Antistatist Position I Defend Here Is Leftist because It Is Concerned with Deprivation......Page 400
E. The Antistatist Position I Defend Here Is Leftist because of Its Opposition to War and War-Like Aggression......Page 401
F. The Anarchist Vision Delineated Here Is Recognizably Leftist......Page 402
A. The Anarchist Vision Outlined Here Is Anticapitalist......Page 404
B. There Are at Least Five Senses of “Capitalism”......Page 405
1. Capitalism in the Objectionable Senses either Involves Aggression Directly or Depends on Aggression......Page 406
3. Capitalism3 Would Be Undermined by Just Legal Rules in a Stateless Society because It Is Fostered by Past and Ongoing Interference with Peaceful, Voluntary Exchange......Page 407
5. Capitalism4 Would Be Inconsistent with Rules Protecting Peaceful, Voluntary Cooperation because Capitalism2 and Capitalism3 Would Be as Well......Page 408
6. Capitalism5 Need Not Emerge because Just Legal Rules Were in Place, and Features of a Just Legal Order Could Undermine the Dominance of Commercialized Motives and Interactions......Page 409
1. Anarchists Should Not Shy away from “Anticapitalist” Language......Page 410
2. This Language Helps to Emphasize the Specific Undesirability of Capitalism3.......Page 411
5. This Usage Helps to Challenge the Assumption That Capital Is More Economically Fundamental than Labor......Page 412
7. This Usage Explicitly Links Anarchists with the Global Anticapitalist Movement......Page 413
E. The Anarchist Legal Order Envisioned Here Would Undermine Capitalism......Page 414
B. Thomas Hodgskin Took a Position That in Important Respects Anticipated the One I Defend......Page 415
C. Benjamin Tucker Defended as Socialist a Position Featuring both Peaceful, Voluntary Cooperation through Exchange and the End of State-Secured Privilege......Page 417
D. The Work of Hodgskin and Tucker Suggests How the Legal and Political Project I Have Outlined Might Be Understood as Socialist......Page 420
E. Socialism and Anarchism as I Have Understood Them May Be Seen as Consonant......Page 422
V. THE MODEL OF STATELESS LAW OUTLINED HERE EMBODIES A DISTINCTIVELY LEFTIST, ANTICAPITALIST, AND SOCIALIST ANTISTATISM\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0......Page 423
Conclusion: Ordering Anarchy......Page 425
Index......Page 429